(Yuba-Sutter, CA) –  A state appeals court yesterday upheld the conviction of Constance Addison in the 2019 vehicular death of Alec Flores. However, it vacated the sentence and ordered that she be re-sentenced.

In October 2021, the Yuba City woman was convicted of second-degree murder in the hit-and-run death of a 13-year-old Alec Flores. At that time she was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.

According to prosecutors, Addison was drunk when she hit and killed Flores along Franklin Road back in October 2019, after which, she left the scene of the accident. She had a blood-alcohol level of .24 – 3 times the legal limit.

Addison’s three children were also in the car at the time of the deadly incident, according to prosecutors.

Addison was then sentenced to 15 years to life in prison

Court documents released yesterday, report the following: Here, the trial court imposed the upper term on count 2 (gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated) and count 3 (hit-and-run driving resulting in death). In doing so, the trial court found three circumstances in aggravation. First, it found the crime involved great bodily harm, referencing Flores’s broken right ankle, scalp laceration, crushed skull, and eventual death. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1).) 3 Second, it found Flores was particularly vulnerable because “he was a child walking to school in the bike lane with no protection.” (Rule 4.421(a)(3).) Third, it found, as a factor relevant in aggravation, that defendant’s BAC was at least 0.24 percent. (Rule 4.421(c).) In mitigation, it found only that defendant had no prior record. (Rule 4.423(b)(1).) Of the three aggravating factors, none were found true by the jury, nor were any stipulated to by defendant. 4 The sentence should thus be vacated, and the matter 3 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 4 Though not raised by the parties, we question whether the trial court’s first aggravating factor—that the crime involved great bodily harm—constitutes improper dual use under rule 4.420(h), given that great bodily harm is an element of both vehicular manslaughter and hit and run causing death. (See People v. McNiece (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1061 [“Bodily harm resulting in death is an element of felony vehicular manslaughter. Reliance upon that fact alone is improper when trying to aggravate a term of imprisonment”], disapproved on other grounds as stated in People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798 & People v. Flood (1998) 18 Cal.4th 470; People v. Duran (1982)