18 Cal.App.5th 1021
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- On July 5, 2015, C.D. drove a stolen Acura in a three-car caravan; police officers Hearn, Niemi, and Dimercurio approached and activated lights.
- Officer Hearn positioned his marked patrol car near the first vehicle and stood at his open driver’s door; Niemi stood by his patrol car near the stolen Acura.
- C.D. accelerated the Acura through the narrow gap between Hearn’s patrol car and a red SUV, striking or nearly striking the patrol car; Hearn fired, wounding C.D. and causing loss of an eye.
- The juvenile petition alleged three counts: two assaults on a peace officer under Penal Code §245(c) (one framed as use of a deadly weapon; one as means likely to produce great bodily injury) and taking/ driving a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code §10851).
- The juvenile court found all counts true and committed C.D. to DJJ; the appellate court reviewed whether dual §245(c) findings based on the same act were permissible and assessed sufficiency of evidence and the Pitchess ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §245(c) supports multiple convictions for the same act (deadly weapon vs. means likely to produce great bodily injury) | Dual findings are allowed analogous to §245(a) subdivisions; punishments and protections justify separate convictions | §245(c) describes a single offense with two alternate means; dual convictions for the same act are impermissible | §245(c) is a single offense; one of the two assault findings reversed |
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain an assault under §245(c) | Evidence showed C.D. intentionally accelerated toward officer, supporting assault | C.D. argued he did not aim at Hearn and there was room to pass safely, so no assault | Evidence sufficient: intentional act that a reasonable person would know would probably and directly result in force; one assault finding stands |
| Proper handling of Pitchess motion for officer personnel records | Records could contain discoverable facts (excessive force, dishonesty) and should be disclosed if material | Trial court reviewed in camera and found no discoverable records; alternative writ review upheld that decision | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no releasable records found |
| Effect of reversal on juvenile confinement/time | People: both findings appropriate; convictions affect disposition | Defense: reversing one finding may affect sentence but court had stayed one count under §654 | Reversal of one §245(c) finding ordered; disposition unchanged because stay applied to one assault count |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (addresses §954 and that multiple convictions are improper when they are different statements of the same offense)
- People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal.4th 533 (statutory structure — separate subdivisions with separate elements/punishments indicate distinct offenses)
- People v. White, 2 Cal.5th 349 (applies Gonzalez to uphold dual convictions under distinct statutory subdivisions)
- In re Mosley, 1 Cal.3d 913 (construed pre-2011 §245(a) as describing a single offense when deadly-weapon and great-bodily-injury variants were alternative means)
- In re Jonathan R., 3 Cal.App.5th 963 (analyzed dual assault convictions under §245(a) and the effect of the 2011 statutory reformatting)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Pitchess procedure and in camera review requirements)