People v. Helton CA3

── People v. Helton CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 P. v. Helton CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ---- THE PEOPLE, C102545 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 04F11425) v. RICHARD HELTON, Defendant and Appellant. In 2013, a jury found defendant Richard Helton guilty of several felonies, including attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187/664).1 The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 38 years to life. Later, the trial court resentenced defendant under section 1172.75 to an aggregate term of 37 years to life, striking the prior prison term enhancement and reimposing the upper term based on defendant’s criminal record. Defendant appeals his resentencing. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there 1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. 1 are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to him. Although this is not defendant’s first appeal as of right from his judgment of criminal conviction, we nonetheless exercised our discretion under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, to review the record independently. After independently reviewing the record, we found two arguable issues and requested supplemental briefing on (1) whether the trial court erred in reimposing the upper term, and (2) whether defendant’s restitution fine must be vacated pursuant to section 1465.9. Having considered the parties’ supplemental briefs, we conclude the trial court did not err in reimposing the upper term, and the restitution fine must be vacated. We will modify the judgment to vacate the restitution fine and affirm the judgment as modified. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Conviction and Original Sentencing In December 2004, defendant assaulted his live-in girlfriend, threatened to kill her, and strangled her until she passed out. In June 2013, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder (§§ 187/664), inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), and making criminal threats (§ 422). The jury also found true great bodily injury enhancements as to the charges for attempted murder, inflicting corporal injury, and making criminal threats. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) Defendant separately admitted three prior serious felony enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)), three prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and one prior prison term enhancement (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). In July 2013, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison for 27 years to life plus 11 years, as follows: The upper term for attempted murder (nine years) tripled due to the prior strikes, five years for the great bodily injury enhancement, five years for the prior serious felony enhancement, and one year for the prior prison term enhancement. The 2 court stayed punishment on the remaining convictions pursuant to sectio