People v. Holland CA3

── People v. Holland CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Holland CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C102759 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F03184) v. CEDRIC HOLLAND, Defendant and Appellant. In 2015, a jury found defendant Cedric Holland guilty of numerous child sexual abuse charges and found true the multiple victim allegation. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true several sentence enhancement allegations, including a prior prison term enhancement under former Penal Code, section 667.5, subdivision (b) (statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 502 years to life in prison. Later, the trial court resentenced defendant under section 1172.75 to 501 years in prison. 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 are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to him. Although counsel advised defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 1 days of the date of filing the Wende brief, more than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. After independently reviewing the record, we requested supplemental briefing from the parties on whether the trial court erred in reimposing the upper term, erred in striking the restitution fine (§ 1202.4), or erred in imposing the criminal conviction and court operations assessments after finding defendant indigent. Appointed counsel’s supplemental brief argues the trial court could not reimpose the upper term based on aggravating factors that defendant had not stipulated to, or that a fact finder had not found true beyond a reasonable doubt under section 1170, subdivision (b). Defendant also argues the court erred in imposing certain fines and fees, and the People concede those errors. Having considered the parties’ supplemental briefs, we conclude that, because the trial court previously imposed the upper term, the court could reimpose the upper term during the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing without complying with the new evidentiary requirements for upper term sentences under section 1170, subdivision (b). We also accept the People’s concessions regarding the fines and fees. We will modify the fines and fees portion of the judgment accordingly and affirm the judgment as modified. FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Conviction and Original Sentencing In 2015 a jury found defendant guilty of eight counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a) – counts One, Three, Five, Seven, and Nine through Twelve), three counts of oral copulation on a child under the age of 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (b) – counts Two, Four, and Six), exhibiting harmful sexual material to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a) – count Eight), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a) – count Thirteen) and kidnapping to commit a lewd and lascivious act (§ 209, subd. (b)(1) 2 – count Fourteen). The jury also found t