Error and/or relief
The evidence to support the alleged use of a deadly weapon is insufficient as a matter of law. The minor was alleged to have committed robbery with the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (knife).
First Holding:
Section 12022(b)(1) allows a defendant’s sentence to be enhanced if he or she personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon during a felony. To prove use, the evidence must show something more than merely being armed. Intentionally displaying a weapon in a menacing manner qualifies. When a defendant deliberately shows a weapon or otherwise makes its presence known, and there is no evidence to suggest any purpose other than intimidating the victim (or others) so as to successfully complete the underlying offense, the fact finder is entitled to find a facilitative use rather than an incidental or inadvertent exposure. But the use enhancement is not applicable if the evidence shows that the defendant’s conduct with respect to the weapon appears to be purely incidental to the crime, or if the defendant did no more than passively display the weapon.
Authority:
People v. Chambers (1972) 7 Cal.3d 666, 672
People v. Wims (1995) 10 Cal.4th 293, 302
People v. Granado (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 317, 325
People v. Hays (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 534, 548–549
Second Holding:
To determine whether the defendant used a knife for purposes of section 12022(b)(1), we may properly consult cases construing the term uses in other enhancement statutes, including cases involving the personal use of a firearm. But in doing so, we are mindful that unlike a firearm, a knife can be, and usually is, used for innocent purposes, and for that reason is not among the few objects that are inherently deadly weapons.
Authority:
People v. Hajek and Vo (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1144, 1198, overruled on other grounds in People v. Rangel (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1192, 1216
People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 6
Third Holding:
In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an enhancement, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Authority:
People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 59–60
Fourth Holding:
On a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we consider the record evidence, not how a trial court might have responded to a timely objection.
Authority:
People v. McCullogh (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596
In re I.A. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 767, 776 [No objection is necessary to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for appeal]
People v. Hiller (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 335, 345 [a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is generally not subject to forfeiture]
Fifth Holding:
Reversal of the use enhancement for insufficiency of the evidence bars retrial of the enhancement.
Authority:
Tibbs v. Florida (1982) 457 U.S. 31, 42
People v. Eroshevich (2014) 60 Cal.4th 583, 591