People v. Rivas CA3, C094563A

Andrew Rivas was convicted after a jury trial of several serious crimes arising from an eight-day domestic violence incident involving his girlfriend, resulting in severe physical and psychological injuries to the victim.
Rivas received an aggregate 28-year prison sentence, including upper-term sentences on three counts and one enhancement.
The trial court relied on multiple aggravating factors in imposing upper terms, none of which had been found true by a jury or stipulated to by the defendant.
On initial appeal, one false imprisonment conviction was reversed, some fines and fees were ordered recalculated, and the sentence was otherwise affirmed with minor modifications.
The California Supreme Court transferred the case back to reconsider in light of People v. Lynch, which clarified requirements for jury findings on aggravating sentencing factors under Senate Bill No. 567.
Upon reconsideration, the Court of Appeal reversed Rivas’s sentence and ordered a new sentencing hearing consistent with Lynch and current law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Application of Senate Bill No. 567	N/A (The People mainly responded to defendant's issues and conceded where appropriate)	Rivas argued for retroactive application, requiring a jury to find aggravating sentencing facts beyond a reasonable doubt.	Remand required: resentencing must comply with Senate Bill No. 567 per Lynch.
Multiple False Imprisonment Convictions	N/A	Rivas argued one conviction was improper because the restraint was continuous.	Agree: Only one conviction allowed; one reversed.
Proper Use of Aggravating Factors for Upper Terms	Supported the trial court's imposition	Rivas argued the same factors were impermissibly used for both upper terms and consecutive sentences, and not all were jury-found or stipulated.	Not addressed directly due to resentencing but signals must follow proper process on remand.
$30 Surcharge and Calculation of Fees	Did not oppose striking it if court found error	Rivas requested the surcharge be struck	Not directly addressed; rendered moot by remand for resentencing.

People v. Lynch, 16 Cal.5th 730 (Cal. 2024) (clarifies that upper term sentencing factors must be jury-found or otherwise compliant with new statutory requirements and sets out remand standard)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (Sixth Amendment requires jury findings on sentencing facts that expose a defendant to greater punishment)