People v. Strong CA5

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Dante John Strong appeals from a resentencing following remittitur in a prior appeal.1 Appellant argues the trial court improperly imposed the upper term for a firearm enhancement, by relying upon aggravating factors not proven true beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury or judge in a court trial. While the instant appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch). This court ordered the parties submit supplemental briefing on the applicability of the Lynch standard of review, specifically whether a jury would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to impose the upper term on the firearm enhancement. Both appellant and the people subsequently filed supplemental briefs. Appellant argued not all of the aggravating facts would have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt based on the record and therefore the trial court’s error in relying on those facts was not harmless. The People in turn argued a jury would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt each factor relied upon by the court to impose the upper term. We vacate the sentence, and remand for…