In re Brown
160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 822
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Brown was charged with vandalism and assault with a deadly weapon; a prior juvenile adjudication for robbery was alleged as a strike under Three Strikes.
- After a jury forgone assault conviction, Brown admitted the strike with counsel, and the court doubled his sentence based on the strike admission.
- Appellate counsel later discovered the juvenile adjudication was for grand theft, not robbery, thus not qualifying as a strike.
- Brown filed a habeas petition claiming trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not properly investigating the strike and by advising an invalid strike admission.
- The court granted the petition, striking the erroneous strike admission and remanding for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did trial counsel provide ineffective assistance by inadequate investigation of the strike? | Brown | Brown | Yes; counsel failed to properly verify the strike record. |
| Did Brown's juvenile adjudication qualify as a strike under the statute? | Brown | Brown | No; the adjudication was for grand theft, not a strike. |
| Was there prejudice from admitting a false strike based on trial counsel's actions? | Brown | Brown | Yes; admission could not be reasonably supported and affected sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hill, 198 Cal.App.4th 1008 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (duty to investigate defenses; standard of reasonableness)
- Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. Supreme Court 1987) (right to counsel; two-part ineffective assistance test)
- Plager, 196 Cal.App.3d 1537 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1987) (ineffective assistance where admission of invalid strike caused greater sentence)
- Lewis v. Lane, 832 F.2d 1446 (7th Cir. 1987) (counsel's reliance on insecure information undermining adversarial process)
- Banyard v. Duncan, 342 F.Supp.2d 865 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (ineffective assistance when mischaracterized prior conviction)