People v. Hall CA1/1

facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman[5] standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.” (Lynch, at p. 768.) The court went on to “disapprove People v. Hall [(2023)] 97 Cal.App.5th [1101], 1104–1108, People v. Ruiz [(2023)] 97 Cal.App.5th 1068, 1076–1078, People v. Falcon [(2023)] 92 Cal.App.5th 911, 938–939, People v. Butler [(2023)] 89 Cal.App.5th 953, 960, People v. Lewis [(2023)] 88 Cal.App.5th 1125, People v. Ross [(2022)] 86 Cal.App.5th 1346 . . . , People v. Dunn [(2022)] 81 Cal.App.5th 394, 407, People v. Zabelle [(2022)] 80 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1110–1113, People v. Lopez [(2022)] 78 Cal.App.5th 459, 467, footnote 11, and People v. Flores [(2022)] 75 Cal.App.5th 495, 500, to the extent they are inconsistent with today’s opinion.” (Id. at pp. 768–769.) The high court thereafter transferred the instant case back to us “with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider the cause in light of” Lynch. (Hall, supra, S283530, Supreme Ct. Mins., June 12,…