Does a judge have to resent the sentence of an adult convicted of a sexual assault for using an element of the crime as an aggravating factor?

The trial court erred when it used an element of the offense as an aggravating factor and when it made it dual use of prior convictions. The error was not, however, prejudicial. "'Improper dual use of the same fact for imposition of both an upper term and a consecutive term or other enhancement does not necessitate resentencing if "[i]t is not reasonably probable that a more favorable sentence would have been imposed in the absence of the error."' [Citation.] Only a single aggravating factor is required to impose the upper term [citation] . . . ." (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 728-729.) Here, the trial court could have imposed the upper term by relying solely on the aggravating factor that appellant's "prior convictions as an adult . . . are numerous . . . ." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421, subd. (b)(2).) There is no reasonable probability the trial court would

Page 9

have imposed a more lenient sentence had it not mentioned the improper aggravating factors. Resentencing is not required.