People v. Hopkins CA5

INTRODUCTION

Appellant William Jack Hopkins was convicted of 13 counts following a three-day crime spree. In his original appeal, we concluded that Hopkins was entitled to a new sentencing hearing following the enactment of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (SB 567) and Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 518), which went into effect after he was sentenced but before his judgment of conviction became final. The instant appeal follows from that resentencing hearing. On appeal, appointed counsel for Hopkins asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Following review of the record, we requested the parties brief the following issues: First, “Were the aggravating factors the trial court relied upon to impose the upper-term sentence on many of the counts properly established? (See Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821.)” Second, “Assuming error, was it harmless under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24? (See People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730.)” The Attorney General concedes that the trial court imposed upper-term sentences on multiple…