People v. Taylor CA1/2

Filed 6/27/24 P. v. Taylor CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169025 v. SUNJOLI TAYLOR, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 21CR009607) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Sunjoli Taylor appeals from the sentence imposed following her conviction for felony grand theft. She contends the trial court erred in making true findings on two aggravating circumstances because she never personally waived her right to a jury trial. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court violated Taylor’s right to a jury trial on one of the aggravating circumstances, but argues that she did not have a right to a jury trial on the other. We agree with the Attorney General. We will strike the true finding for the aggravating circumstance under California Rules of Court,1 rule 4.421(a)(9) (that Taylor’s crime involved an attempted or actual taking of great monetary value), and in all other respects affirm the judgment.

1 Further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Charges In July 2022, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a one-count information charging Taylor with felony grand theft of personal property (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)), and alleging three factors in aggravation: (1) the crime involved an attempted or actual taking of great monetary value (rule 4.421(a)(9)); (2) Taylor’s prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency are “numerous or of increasing seriousness” (rule 4.421(b)(2)); and (3) Taylor’s prior performance on probation, mandatory supervision, postrelease community supervision, or parole was unsatisfactory (rule 4.421(b)(5)). Jury Trial A jury found Taylor guilty of grand theft. The facts are not at issue in this appeal, so we describe them only briefly. Taylor listed a car for sale on the OfferUp app. A potential buyer (soon to be victim) exchanged some messages with Taylor and the two agreed to meet at a bank in Hayward. After a test drive, the buyer agreed to purchase the car and went into the bank to withdraw additional funds. He gave $9,800 to Taylor, who put it in her purse, but he was still $200 short of the agreed upon price. Taylor insisted that the buyer give her the rest of the money, so the buyer rode with Taylor to another bank to withdraw more money. But when the buyer came out of the second bank, Taylor was gone. She had taken the $9,800. The buyer texted and called Taylor asking her to come back, to no avail. The buyer—now victim—called the police.