Error and/or relief
A jury convicted the defendant of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and found true that he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of those counts. We conclude the injury to the victim in count 2, which the emergency room doctor described as a “superficial laceration,” is not sufficient to support the enhancement under section 12022.7(a). Consequently, we reverse the true finding, strike the one year imposed under section 12022.7(a), associated with count 2, and remand for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion anew with the changed circumstance.
First Holding:
Great bodily injury is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.
Authority:
People v. Wyatt (2012) 55 Cal.4th 694, 702
People v. Sandoval (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 357, 361 [noting that great bodily injury is significant or substantial physical injury that is more than minor or moderate]
People v. Martinez (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 727, 735–736 [evidence of superficial lacerations held not sufficient to prove great bodily injury]
Second Holding:
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury’s true finding on a section 12022.7(a) enhancement under the same standard that applies to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value.
Authority:
People v. Escobar (1992) 3 Cal.4th 740, 750
People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307
Third Holding:
When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.
Authority:
People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681
People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1259 [upon remand for resentencing after the reversal of one or more subordinate counts of a felony conviction, the trial court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence on the counts that were affirmed, including the term imposed as the principal term]