Tag Archives: Evidence

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Evidence, Racial Justice Act, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 001094

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s oral motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act (RJA).

First Holding:

It is a violation of the RJA for the judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or a juror to exhibit bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin or, during the defendant’s trial, in court and during the proceedings, to use racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibit bias or animus toward the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, whether or not purposeful.

A defendant may file a motion alleging a violation of subdivision (a). If a motion is filed in the trial court and the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation of subdivision (a), the trial court shall hold a hearing, at which the defendant bears the burden of proving an RJA violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Subject to exceptions inapplicable in this case, if the court finds an RJA violation by a preponderance of evidence, the court shall impose an enumerated remedy specific to the violation. If judgment has yet to be entered, one remedy is to reduce one or more charges. After judgment has been entered, the court shall vacate the conviction and sentence, find that it is legally invalid, and order new proceedings consistent with subdivision (a).

Authority:

PEN 745

Second Holding:

The defendant argues that the trial court erred to the extent it denied his RJA motion because it was brought orally rather than by written, noticed motion. Addressing this issue of statutory interpretation de novo, we conclude the RJA does not preclude the possibility of making an oral motion. Accordingly, the court erred to the extent it denied the motion for being brought orally.

Authority:

McIntosh v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 33, 41

Third Holding:

In interpreting a statute, our goal is to ascertain the Legislature’s intent to effectuate the statute’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. If the language is unambiguous, the plain meaning controls. The words, however, must be construed in context, so we look to the entire section as well as the statutory framework as a whole in deciding what a word or provision means, and we attempt to harmonize terms where possible. We may reject a literal construction that is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute or that would lead to absurd results.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

People v. Murphy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 136, 142

Voices of the Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 499, 519

Moyer v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230

Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore (2010) 49 Cal.4th 12, 27

Fourth Holding:

The statutory language here is ambiguous. Section 745 does not say a defendant “must file” a motion; instead, it is permissive. But nor does the statute say that a defendant “may make” an oral motion. We therefore look to legislative findings made in support of the RJA to discern the Legislature’s intent.

When statutory language is ambiguous, we look to a variety of extrinsic aids, including the ostensible objects to be achieved, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and contemporaneous administrative construction. Because uncodified findings of legislative intent are voted upon by the entire legislative body, enrolled and signed by the Governor, they may be entitled to somewhat greater weight than traditional legislative history materials.

(Gary note: Regarding the reference to “uncodified findings” in the last sentence above, Assembly Bill 2542 (2019-2020 legislative session), which enacted the Racial Justice Act, contains a few sections in the bill that were not codified, meaning they do not appear in any of California’s codes, such as the Penal Code.

(Depending on the wording, the uncodified language may or may not have the force of law. For example, section 7 of the bill directs that certain portions of the bill are effective only if a different specified bill is enacted and becomes effective by a specified date. Section 7 thus carries the force of law.

(But section 2 of the bill contains 10 findings made by the Legislature that led to its passage of the RJA. In roughly 1,329 words. Some of the findings relate the existence and effects of racism–intentional or otherwise–and others state something like “It is the intent of the Legislature that ….” Those findings and statements of intent probably do not technically carry the force of law, but may be considered by the courts in interpreting the statutes that were enacted.

(The trial court then discussed the various aspects of the findings that led it to conclude that “Given the expansiveness of the Legislature’s purpose in enacting the RJA, it is appropriate to construe the legislation liberally in favor of affording defendants an opportunity to raise potential RJA violations through an oral motion.” It cautioned, however, that it may not be the best practice to raise the motion orally, as it may create confusion over what, exactly, is being asserted.)

Authority:

People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1008

Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 157

Fifth Holding:

In the course of the hearing, counsel appeared to concur that the proper standard was proof by preponderance of the evidence, rather than the much lower standard at the prima facie stage. Though it is not clear what standard the court applied, it erred in excluding hearsay evidence. Hearsay is not per se excludable under the RJA. The court should have considered whether the proffered hearsay “trustworthy and reliable” before excluding it.

By concluding the evidence before it was double hearsay, the court failed to consider the totality of the proffered facts in assessing whether the defendant made a prima facie showing. On this record, we conclude the defendant made such a sufficient showing at the prima facie stage. We thus reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing under the RJA.

Authority:

PEN 745(c)(1)

Hernandez v. Superior Court (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1130

Sixth Holding:

The people argue that application of the higher standard was invited error, as counsel concurred. The doctrine of invited error is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at defense counsel’s behest. If defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err, the appellant cannot be heard to complain on appeal.

But for the doctrine to apply, it also must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In cases involving an action affirmatively taken by defense counsel, courts have found a clearly implied tactical purpose to be sufficient to invoke the doctrine.

It is not sufficiently clear on this record that counsel had a tactical purpose. It supports the conclusion that counsel simply misunderstood certain details of the RJA when he brought the oral motion. For example, he characterized the motion as a post-judgment motion. But it was prejudgment, though it was presented after the jury verdict. In a criminal case, judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence. Here, the sentencing had not yet happened when the RJA motion was made, so no judgment had been entered.

In light of counsel’s apparent misunderstandings, we conclude that the invited error doctrine is inapplicable. In any event, its application is discretionary, not automatic.

Authority:

People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49

People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9

Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2025) para. 8:248.13

Seventh Holding:

We review de novo a determination that an RJA movant has failed to make a prima facie showing. A defendant makes a prima facie showing if the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that an RJA violation] occurred.

A substantial likelihood requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not. The court should should not make credibility determinations at the prima facie stage. It should accept the truth of the defendant’s allegations unless they are conclusory, unsupported by the evidence presented in support of the claim, or demonstrably contradicted by the court’s own records.

On this record—with these principles in mind and considering the totality of the proffered facts—we conclude that there is more than a mere possibility that an RJA violation occurred. The defendant has therefore made a prima facie showing of one or more RJA violations and is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

PEN 745(h)(2)

PEN 745(c)

People v. Howard (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 625, 650

Finley v. Superior Court (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 12, 23

Hernandez v. Superior Court (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1120, 1130

Duty of the court, Evidence, Sentencing

Case 000933

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the hearing under section 1172.75, it was error to deny the defendant’s motion for discovery of Brady materials that he sought to prepare his case for the recall hearing.

We remand the case for the trial court to review the sought Brady materials to determine whether anything exists that must be provided to the defendant. If so, then it should conduct a new resentencing hearing. If it determines that there is nothing of Brady material nature to be disclosed, it may deny the request, state its reasons, and reinstate the judgment.

Also, the trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.

First Holding:

In the course of the proceedings, the district attorney’s office notified the defendant’s attorney that it had requested Brady information from the law enforcement agency involved in the original investigation of the crimes leading to the defendant’s conviction. The officer’s personnel file may contain information that is potentially exculpatory or may be used for impeachment. The defendant then filed a Pitchess motion to obtain the Brady material. The trial court erroneously concluded that a Pitchess motion cannot be made in section 1172.75 proceedings, and denied the motion.

Under Brady and its progeny, the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose to the defense material exculpatory evidence, including potential impeaching evidence. Although Brady is essentially a trial right, courts have acknowledged that the People’s obligations under Brady are ongoing, even postjudgment.

Authority:

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83

In re Jenkins (2023) 14 Cal.5th 493, 504

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1058–1059

In re Lawley (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1231, 1246 [Even after a conviction, the prosecutor is bound by the ethics of his office to inform the appropriate authority of information that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction]

Canion v. Cole (2005) 210 Ariz. 598, 599 [the state has a continuing Brady duty to disclose evidence that comes to its attention after sentencing] cited with approval in Jenkins, at p. 505

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

Second Holding:

In Pitchess, the California Supreme Court recognized that a criminal defendant may, in some circumstances, compel the discovery of evidence in the arresting law enforcement officer’s personnel file that is relevant to the defendant’s ability to defend against a criminal charge. In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding what had come to be known as ‘Pitchess motions’ through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045.

Authority:

PEN 832.7

PEN 832.8

EVID 1043-1045

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1052

Third Holding:

A Pitchess motion may be used to obtain Brady material contained in a peace officer’s confidential personnel file.

However, because the Pitchess process operates in parallel with Brady and does not prohibit the disclosure of Brady information, all information that the trial court finds to be exculpatory and material under Brady must be disclosed, notwithstanding the limitations of the Pitchess process.

Authority:

People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1055

People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 720

Fourth Holding:

Although the proceeding below was a resentencing hearing, Brady material may have some relevance. Where, as here, section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors. This entails applying any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(d)(2)

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3

Fifth Holding:

Under the resentencing procedures set forth in section 1172.1(a)(5), the trial court must consider evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice, which may include evidence that the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated in the proceedings related to the conviction or sentence at issue, and any other evidence that undermines the integrity of the underlying conviction or sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1172.1(a)(5)

Sixth Holding:

Further, at a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the trial court may exercise its power under section 1385 and Romero to dismiss a prior strike conviction in furtherance of justice. When exercising this power, the court may consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of a defendant’s conviction.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 361–364

People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 586

People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497

Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000858

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We hold that the officers’ un-Mirandized questioning of the defendant was a custodial interrogation and reverse the judgment.

First Holding:

When reviewing issues under Miranda, we accept the trial court’s findings of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence but independently determine whether the interrogation was custodial. Where, as here, an interview is recorded, the facts surrounding the admission are undisputed and subject to our independent review.

Authority:

People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1161

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 172

Second Holding:

To give force to the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination, a custodial interrogation must be preceded by Miranda warnings and the suspect’s voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights.

Persons in custody thus must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, any statement made may be used as evidence against them, and they have the right to an attorney.

For Miranda purposes, interrogation means express questioning or words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Authority:

Florida v. Powell (2010) 559 U.S. 50, 59

People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530–531

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 244

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301

Third Holding:

The protections provided by Miranda apply only to custodial interrogations. The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Volunteered statements, for instance, that were not made in response to police questioning are not the product of an interrogation and thus not inadmissible under Miranda even when the statements were made while in custody.

Where a defendant seeks to exclude statements made in the absence of a Miranda advisement, they must therefore establish both that the police questioning was an interrogation and that it occurred while the individual was in custody.

Authority:

People v. Zapata (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 529, 538

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301

People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 648

Fourth Holding:

A custodial interrogation occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would feel that their freedom has been deprived in any significant way; for example, a formal arrest or a restraint of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.

When there has been no formal arrest, the question is how a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have understood their situation. All the circumstances of the interrogation are relevant to this inquiry, including the location, length and form of the interrogation, the degree to which the investigation was focused on the defendant, and whether any indicia of arrest were present.

Whether a person is in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.

Authority:

California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 491

People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 395

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 172

Fifth Holding:

When the court considers whether an individual was in custody during their questioning, it looks at the interplay and combined effect of all the circumstances to determine whether on balance they created a coercive atmosphere such that a reasonable person would have experienced a restraint tantamount to an arrest. The courts have articulated a number of non-exhaustive factors to consider when conducting this analysis.

The relevant factors include: (1) whether contact was initiated by the police or the person interrogated, and if by the police, whether the person voluntarily agreed to an interview; (2) whether the express purpose of the interview was to question the person as a witness or a suspect; (3) location of the interview; (4) whether police informed the person they were under arrest or in custody; (5) whether they informed the person they were free to terminate the interview and leave at any time; (6) whether there were restrictions on the person’s freedom of movement during the interview; (7) length of the interrogation; (8) how many police officers participated; (9) whether they dominated and controlled the course of the interrogation; (10) whether they manifested a belief that the person was culpable and they had evidence to prove it; (11) whether the police were aggressive, confrontational, and/or accusatory; (12) whether the police used interrogation techniques to pressure the suspect; and 13) whether the person was arrested at the end of the interrogation.

Authority:

People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1162

Sixth Holding:

The circumstances are less likely to suggest to an individual that they are unable to leave or end the questioning when they voluntarily subject themselves to such an examination.

Authority:

People v. Potter (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 528, 541 [holding that the defendant was not in custody when he voluntarily came to the police station for an interview]

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 173 [defendant’s agreement to be voluntarily interviewed in unmarked police car weighed against a custodial finding]

Seventh Holding:

A custodial interrogation does not occur where an officer detains a suspect for investigation and limits questioning to the purpose of identification or obtaining sufficient information to confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicions that a crime has occurred.

Authority:

People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 180

People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 679–680

Eighth Holding:

The mere fact that an individual is a suspect is not enough to foster a custodial environment; the officers’ suspicion must also be communicated to that person for it to factor into the custody determination.

The awareness of the person being questioned by an officer that the police have ample cause to arrest him, may well lead him to conclude, as a reasonable person, that he is not free to leave, and that he has been significantly deprived of his freedom.

Authority:

People v. Vasquez (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1163—1164

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 176 [holding that officers’ expressed belief that the defendant was culpable and they had evidence to prove it weighed in favor of custody determination]

Ninth Holding:

An interview that takes place in public within view of any passersby reduces the ability of an unscrupulous officer to use illegitimate means to elicit incriminating responses and should lessen a suspect’s fear of abuse should they not cooperate.

Authority:

Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 438

Tenth Holding:

The longer the period of questioning, the more likely it will be found to be coercive and custodial, although even one question may be enough in the proper circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Herdan (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 300, 307, fn. 12

Eleventh Holding:

If the court finds that the statement was admitted in violation of Miranda, the court must determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not impact the jury’s guilty verdict, such that the jury would not have reached a different result had the trial court excluded the challenged statements.  

The court assesses whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. To say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 21–22

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 495

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Twelfth Holding:

A confession is like no other evidence. Indeed, the defendant’s own confession is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him. On the record in this case, we cannot find that the admission of the defendant’s statements was harmless error.

Authority:

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 296.

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 181 [finding prejudice where there were no witnesses or physical evidence and defendant’s non-Mirandized statements was primary evidence]

Appellate Principles, Duty of counsel

Case 000799

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The habeas corpus writ is granted. The matter is remanded for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine various identified aspects of allegedly false testimony and its impact on the jury’s decision to convict the defendant.

First Holding:

The People argue that the claim is procedurally barred under the contemporaneous objection rule, and the false testimony was not material. Also, the People assert the claim is prohibited because the defendant failed to pursue them on direct appeal, citing Sakarias and Dixon.

Petitioner argues that the assertions of procedural default do not bar the presentation of the claims in these proceedings, citing Glossip), in which the United States Supreme Court held that it is the prosecution’s duty to correct false testimony when it appears.

Authority:

In re Sakarias (2005) 35 Cal.4th 140, 169

In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759

Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025) 604 U.S. 226, 253, fn. 10 [even if the defense had made a conscious choice not to raise the issue of the false testimony, that would be irrelevant.]

Second Holding:

Petitioner alleged that the claim was being raised presently under the authority of SB 97, which went into effect on January 1, 2024, and allows for a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the additional bases of the discovery of new evidence that has not been previously presented and heard at trial and has been discovered after trial.

The People have not directly addressed this assertion, so we conclude that, in issuing the order to show cause, the Supreme Court found the petition was timely.

(Gary note: the Court of Appeal denied the defendant’s first petition for writ of habeas corpus, so he petitioned for review in the Supreme Court, which remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal to issue an order to show cause.)

Authority:

PEN 1473(b)(1)(A)

Third Holding:

In reviewing a habeas petition, the Supreme Court (or any other court considering such a petition) performs a gatekeeping function of determining whether it states a prima facie case for relief and whether the stated claims are procedurally barred. If the petition meets these requirements, the court must issue a writ of habeas corpus or order to show cause, receive a return and traverse, and may, if necessary, order an evidentiary hearing on the claims.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 457

Fourth Holding:

The Supreme Court’s direction to an appellate court to issue an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted signifies its preliminary determination that the petitioner has made a prima facie statement of specific facts which, if established, entitle [petitioner] to habeas corpus relief under existing law.

Authority:

In re Serrano (1995) 10 Cal.4th 447, 454-455

People v. Duvall (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 464, 475

Fifth Holding:

The issuance of the order to show cause creates a cause giving the People a right to reply to the petition by a return and to otherwise participate in the court’s decisionmaking process. It is through the return and the traverse that the issues are joined in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Once the issues have been joined in this way, the court must determine whether an evidentiary hearing is needed. If the written return admits allegations in the petition that, if true, justify the relief sought, the court may grant relief without an evidentiary hearing. If the return and traverse reveal that petitioner’s entitlement to relief hinges on the resolution of factual disputes, then the court should order an evidentiary hearing.

Authority:

In re Serrano (1995) 10 Cal.4th 447, 455

People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 739-740

Sixth Holding:

It is established that a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment. The same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears. To establish a Napue violation, a defendant must show that the prosecution knowingly solicited false testimony or knowingly allowed it to go uncorrected when it appeared.

Authority:

Napue v. lllinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264, 269

People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 966-967

Seventh Holding:

If the defendant makes such a showing, a new trial is warranted so long as the false testimony may have had an effect on the outcome of the trial,—that is, if it in any reasonable likelihood could have affected the judgment of the jury. In effect, this materiality standard requires the beneficiary of the constitutional error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Evidence can be material even if it goes only to the credibility of the witness.

Authority:

Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025) 604 U.S. 226, 246

Napue v. lllinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264, 269

Eighth Holding:

The Court of Appeal is ill-suited to make factual determinations. For this reason, we cannot simply order a new trial, and, instead, must remand the matter to the superior court with directions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to (1) the basis on which the paramedic based his testimony that there were two gunshot wounds; (2) whether the prosecution possessed the autopsy report and the police report summarizing the findings of that report, and, if not, why; (3) whether the autopsy report was provided to petitioner’s trial counsel in discovery, and, if not, why this would not constitute a Brady violation; (4) why the false testimony of the paramedic was not timely corrected; (5) why Detectives [A] and [B] did not testify about the evidence collected at the scene and the results of the autopsy; and (6) why a new trial should not be ordered.

Authority:

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 901 [Ordinarily, an evidentiary hearing is the appropriate means of resolving factual disputes of this nature]

Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 000795

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erroneously imposed a 10-year upper term firearm enhancement, although the jury was not asked to consider, and did not render a finding, that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder. The 10-year firearm enhancement is unauthorized. We therefore strike the enhancement and affirm the judgment as modified.

Holding:

The personal firearm use allegation under section 12022.5(a), was pled only as to the codefendant. No firearm allegation was alleged as to defendant under any statute. Nevertheless, at defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a 10-year upper term enhancement for personal firearm use under section 12022.5. No objection was raised in the trial court to the imposition of this enhancement, and no contention was raised on appeal regarding the sentencing error. The 10-year firearm use enhancement is unauthorized and must be stricken.

(Gary note:  There was no discussion of effective assistance of counsel in the opinion.  It relied solely on the unauthorized nature of the sentence.  But I have “tagged” this as ineffective assistance of counsel.  How could counsel have let his or her client receive a 10-year enhancement that was not charged against the client?  Yes, it was against the co-defendant, but I’m not sure it takes a Monday morning quarterback to suggest that one’s client should not be sentenced on a different defendant’s charges.  If the co-defendant had been charged with murder, and my client with only burglary, I think I’d notice if my client was sentenced to a life term for my co-defendant’s murder conviction.  Just sayin’, I guess.)

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354