People v. Almanza
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Christian Almanza, a documented Big Hazard gang member, participated in events that led to the fatal shooting of Robert Hernandez and injury to a bystander; co-defendant Rivas fired the shots while Almanza handled the firearm afterward and left it at another house.
- Almanza admitted involvement after a recorded police interview and exchanged texts suggesting concern about surveillance and leaving town.
- A jury convicted Almanza of first degree murder and assault with a firearm, found gang enhancements true, and found a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death under Penal Code § 12022.53(d).
- The trial court found two prior strikes and one prior prison term, and sentenced Almanza to an aggregate term of 137 years to life, including a 25-to-life firearm enhancement under § 12022.53(d); other firearm enhancements were stayed under § 654.
- After appellate review, the California Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Senate Bill No. 620, which amended § 12022.53(h) to permit trial courts to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements in the interest of justice, including retroactively.
- The Court of Appeal granted rehearing and remanded the case to allow the trial court to exercise its independent discretion under the amended statute; otherwise the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand is required so trial court can decide to strike § 12022.53 enhancement under SB 620 | People: remand unnecessary because record shows court would not have reduced sentence (consecutive sentences show lack of leniency) | Almanza: remand required because SB 620 gives retroactive discretion and no clear indication court would forgo reduction | Remand required unless record "clearly indicates" court would not have reduced sentence; here remand ordered so trial court can exercise discretion to strike/dismiss enhancement under § 12022.53(h) |
| Proper standard to apply when trial court was unaware of new sentencing discretion | People: (implicitly) apply harmlessness or no reasonable probability standard | Almanza: apply standard requiring remand unless clear indication court would not have reduced sentence | Court adopts the McDaniels approach: remand unless record clearly indicates the court would not have reduced sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McDaniels, 22 Cal.App.5th 420 (persuasive reasoning on remand standard when retroactive sentencing discretion arises)
- People v. Francis, 71 Cal.2d 66 (retroactivity principles governing sentencing changes)
- People v. Gutierrez, 48 Cal.App.4th 1894 (discusses when remand is unnecessary if no reasonable probability of a different result)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (harmless error and reasonable probability standard referenced)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (discusses harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt and prejudice standards)