People v. Lopez CA3

── People v. Lopez CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 P. v. Lopez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ---- THE PEOPLE, C101201 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CF04168) v. RICHARD ISSAC STEELE LOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant. The trial court sentenced defendant Richard Issac Steele Lopez to an aggregate term of eight years eight months in prison after a jury convicted him on three counts of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).1 Defendant raises two issues on appeal. First, he contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it found the aggravating factors true and sentenced him to the upper term without first obtaining an express waiver of his right to a jury trial or a stipulation to the aggravating factors. He also contends that his right to due process was violated when the People failed to plead the aggravating factors the court used to impose the upper term in the information. We agree the trial court violated 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 defendant’s right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors and that the error was not harmless under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman). Therefore, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for a jury trial on the aggravating factors. BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the facts underlying defendant’s convictions is unnecessary for the issues raised on appeal. Briefly, in October 2023, officers responded to a burglary at a shopping center in Oroville, California, where they found the door to an ice cream shop kicked in, and multiple windows in the center shattered. Defendant was identified as a person of interest. When officers found him, he had dried blood on his hand and was covered in small pieces of glass. Defendant’s clothing matched that of the person seen on surveillance video, and the GPS data recovered from his ankle monitor placed him at the scene. An amended information charged defendant with three counts of commercial burglary (§ 459; counts 1-3). The information also alleged two prior strike convictions for first degree burglary. (§§ 459, 1170.12, subd. (b), 667, subds. (d), (b)-(j).) A jury convicted defendant on all three counts. In bifurcated proceedings, defendant agreed to a bench trial on the prior strike conviction allegations. The trial court found the two prior strike allegations true. At sentencing, the trial court reviewed the probation officer’s report and a prior section 1368 evaluation. One section of the probation report referenced nine felony convictions for defendant; however, another section included a table showing five felony convictions and one misdemeanor conviction. The People explained that the discrepancy arose because the first page of the table was missing from the report. In pronouncing defendant’s sentence, the trial court acknowledged that defendant “did not stipulate to the possible existence of aggravating factors nor did a jury find the aggravating factors to be true.” The court took “judicial notice of its own case files” and determined from those records th