Articles Posted in New Criminal Case Law

People v. Tirado (Cal., Jan. 20, 2022, No. S257658) 2022 WL 176141, at *1

 Summary: Penal Code section 12022.53 authorizes enhancements for certain felonies involving firearms.Section 12022.53, subdivision (h) (section 12022.53(h)) authorizes courts to strike certain enhancements in the interests of justice under the authority of section 1385.

Issue: when the prosecution has alleged, and the jury has found true, the facts supporting an enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) (section 12022.53(d)). what may the court  do if it decides to strike that enhancement. May the court impose a lesser uncharged enhancement under either section 12022.53, subdivision (b) (section 12022.53(b)) or section 12022.53, subdivision (c) (section 12022.53(c))? Or is the court limited to imposing the section 12022.53(d) enhancement or striking it? The California Supreme Court held that a court may strike the section 12022.53(d) enhancement found true by the jury and impose a lesser uncharged statutory enhancement.

People v. Strother (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 563

Summary: Strother was convicted of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and theft of access card information (§ 484e, subd. (d)). Under the Three Strikes law, he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison. In 2013, Strother filed a petition to recall his entire sentence pursuant to Proposition 36 (§ 1170.126), and in 2014 he filed a petition to recall his sentence for theft of access card information pursuant to Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18). The trial court issued an order to show cause why relief should not be granted for both petitions and in found Strother eligible for relief under both propositions. Following a July 2020 hearing on both petitions, the trial court found appellant posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and was not suitable for resentencing. The trial court denied both petitions.

Strother appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion in finding he posed an unreasonable risk of committing one of the “super strikes” identified in Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18) because the trial court 1) failed to consider that his two prior convictions involving violence and firearm use occurred almost 30 years ago with no evidence he was the shooter; 2) failed to consider his prison fighting from 2016 through 2019 was the result of his gang renunciation in 2016; and 3) erroneously found that his conflict resolution and anger management programming and parole plans were inadequate. He makes similar claims about the trial court’s denial of his Proposition 36 petition. The Court of Appeal affirmed  the trial court’s order.

People v. Benzler (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 14, 2021, No. C092779) 2021 WL 5902741, at *1

 Summary: Benzler, sentenced in 2014 for offenses he committed when he was 18 years old, appealed the summary denial of his motion for a Franklin hearing1 under Penal Code section 1203.01.2.  Benzler contends he satisfied the eligibility criteria for such a hearing laid out in In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 669, 441 P.3d 912 (Cook) and did not previously have an opportunity to present evidence related to his status as a juvenile offender. He argued for remand  so he may make a record of this evidence to use in future parole hearings. The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

 Facts and background

People v. Williams (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2021, No. A159914) 2021 WL 5460724, at *1–2

Summary: Williams,  was convicted of murder in 1995 and sentenced to 30 years to life in prison and was released on lifetime parole in 2018. In 2019, he was charged with two misdemeanors, and the district attorney filed a petition to revoke his parole. The  trial court determined that Williams had committed one of the charged offenses and remanded him to prison, the required sanction whenever a court finds that a lifetime parolee has violated parole. (Pen. Code, § 3000.08, subd. (h) (section 3000.08(h).)

Williams appealed claiming that the trial court erred by refusing to refer the matter to the parole agency for a written report before ruling on the petition. Under the plain terms of section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1) (section 1203.2(b)(1)), a court is required to receive a parole agency’s written report before ruling on a parole revocation petition initiated by a district attorney. There is no implied exception to this requirement when such a petition is filed against a lifetime parolee such as Williams, because the report is not pointless even though a court has no discretion to impose intermediate sanctions.

People v. Schuller (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2021, No. C087191) 2021 WL 5228434, at *1

Summary: Schuller, shot his long-time friend, W.T., nine times in the head and set the body on fire.  Schuller testified, claiming self-defense, but his trial testimony about suggested he was delusional and hallucinating. Following a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, a jury found Schuller guilty of first degree murder in the guilt phase. He was found legally sane and sentenced to a term of 50 years to life.

On appeal, Schuller contends the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. He argues that evidence demonstrates he had an actual, albeit unreasonable, belief in the need for self-defense that was not entirely delusional. The Courtnof appeal agreed but find the error harmless.

People v. Davenport (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2021, No. A161954) 2021 WL 5230876, at *1–3

Summary: In 2007, Davenport pled no contest to second degree murder with a firearm enhancement and was sentenced to  18 years to life. Davenport appealed the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. Davenport contends that the   trial court erroneously concluded he failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief by  relying on facts stated in the preliminary hearing transcript in the absence of any stipulation from him that the facts supplied a basis for his plea. The Court of Appeal agreed  and reversed the order summarily denying His  petition and remanded this case for further proceedings.

Facts: Davenport was charged by information with murder (§ 187), alleging he committed the murder “unlawfully and with malice aforethought.” The information included an enhancement for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury and death as well as personal and intentional discharge and personal use of a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)–(d).)