People v. Vansickle CA5

DISCUSSION

The only issues raised in this appeal concern the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. Defendant contends the court failed to effectively exercise its discretion given recent changes made by the Legislature to the relevant statutes governing the sentencing.

I. The Choice of the Middle Term for Count 7

Defendant first challenges the court’s choice of the middle term for the crime charged in count 7, which was 12 years. While acknowledging the choice of the middle term is presumed under section 1170, subdivision (b), defendant believes the court was required to impose the lower term once it was shown she qualified for such a sentence under new language added to section 1170, subdivision (b) before the beginning of 2022. However, before we resolve this issue, we must address the People’s argument that defendant forfeited this challenge because no objection was made to the imposition of the middle term at the time of sentencing.

3. A. Was the Claim for the Lower Term Forfeited? Generally, “complaints about the manner in which the trial court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting reasons cannot be raised for the first time on…