Filed 7/28/26 P. v. Chatman CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
THE PEOPLE, B341595
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. YA101436)
v.
CLAUDE CHATMAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Hector M. Guzman, Judge. Affirmed in part
and reversed in part with directions.
Nancy Sánchez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Charles Chung, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
Appellant Claude Chatman was convicted of first degree
robbery and the court sentenced him to an aggregate term of
18 years in state prison. We vacated the sentence and remanded
the matter for resentencing. (People v. Chatman (June 27, 2024,
B325826) [nonpub. opn.].)
Both Chatman and the People argue that in resentencing
Chatman, who had suffered prior convictions, the trial court
imposed an upper term based on impermissible aggravating
recidivism factors, and that we should remand for further
proceedings. We agree.
At Chatman’s original sentencing, the trial court made the
following findings regarding aggravating facts justifying imposition
of an upper term: “[Chatman’s] prior convictions are numerous,
with increasing seriousness, and . . . prior unsatisfactory
performance on probation or parole [is] very evident.”
The court adopted this prior analysis at resentencing and
imposed double the high term of six years plus a five-year term for
a prior conviction, stayed.
In People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, our Supreme Court
held that under the Sixth Amendment, “a defendant is entitled to a
jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior
conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition
of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm.”
(Id. at p. 1086, fn. omitted.)
Here, the court imposed the upper term based on the
aggravating facts that Chatman’s prior convictions were numerous
and of increasing seriousness and his performance on probation was
unsatisfactory. Because Chatman did not stipulate to these facts,
which go beyond the bare fact of his prior convictions and their
elements, he was entitled to a jury trial on them. That he did not
receive one renders the sentence unauthorized. (Wiley, supra,
2
17 Cal.5th at p. 1091.) Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and
remand the matter to give the People an opportunity to retry
the aggravating facts. (See Wiley, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1091;
People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 776 [proper remedy where
aggravating facts were not tried to a jury “ ‘ “is to remand and
give the People an opportunity to retry” ’ the aggravating facts”].)
Chatman may then assert the right to a jury trial, waive jury in
favor of a court trial, or waive trial altogether. (Wiley, supra, at
p. 1086.)
DISPOSITION
The sentence is reversed and the matter remanded for full
resentencing consistent with this opinion. Upon resentencing, the
court is directed to prepare and forward an amended abstract of
judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:
BENDIX, J.
WEINGART, J.
3