While appellant’s direct appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 567, which amended subdivision (b)(6)(A) of section 1170 to create a presumption for the lower term if psychological, physical, or childhood trauma contributed to the offense. Appellant argued in his direct appeal that this provision applied to his case and that remand for resentencing was required. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court subsequently granted review and deferred briefing pending consideration of People v. Salazar (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 453, which presented a similar issue to appellant’s. The California Supreme Court ordered reversal and remand for resentencing in Salazar because there was “no clear indication in the record that the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence had it been aware of ‘”the scope of its discretionary powers'” to impose the lower term.” (Salazar, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 419.) This case was then transferred back to the Court of Appeal, which held it must likewise be remanded for resentencing.