People v. Anderson
9 Cal.5th 946
| Cal. | 2020Background
- Defendant Vernon Anderson and several others returned to a house party armed; during robberies outside the house a participant fired and killed a partygoer. Anderson was identified as one of the robbers but not as the shooter.
- Charging instrument: murder (count 1) included a §12022.53(e) 25‑to‑life vicarious firearm‑discharge enhancement; robbery counts (counts 3–7) alleged only personal‑use firearm enhancements (§12022.53(b) and §12022.5(a)), not the §12022.53(e) enhancement.
- After close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on §12022.53(e) vicarious discharge enhancements as to the five robbery counts (though those enhancements had not been pleaded); the jury returned true findings and the court imposed five consecutive 25‑to‑life enhancements for the robberies.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed (relying on People v. Riva). The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether unpleaded §12022.53(e) enhancements could be imposed on counts not alleged in the information.
- Holding: the information did not provide constitutionally and statutorily adequate notice to support imposing §12022.53(e) enhancements on the robbery counts; the judgment is reversed and the case remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §12022.53(e) vicarious firearm‑discharge enhancements may be imposed on counts for which they were not pleaded | AG: The jury instructions and verdict forms (and defense silence) supplied adequate notice; informal amendment/consent occurred | Anderson: Enhancements not alleged as to robbery counts; lack of pleading and fair notice violates statutes and due process | Court: No — statutory pleading rules and due process require enhancements be pleaded as to each count; unpleaded §12022.53(e) enhancements cannot be imposed |
| Whether defense counsel’s failure to object constituted implied consent/informal amendment of the information | AG: Silence and approval of instructions/verdict forms amounts to consent to an informal amendment | Anderson: No tactical reason to consent to a procedure that increases punishment; silence is not consent | Court: No — Toro's informal‑amendment rationale inapplicable here; no oral amendment or express consent occurred |
| Whether the claim was forfeited by failure to object at trial | AG: Forfeited because no timely objection in trial court | Anderson: Error affects substantial rights and is of constitutional importance; Mancebo permits review | Court: Not forfeited here — error is clear, affected substantial rights (notice), and merits review despite lack of trial objection |
| Whether the pleading error was harmless | AG: Jury instructions/verdict forms and later proceedings provided adequate notice; harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Anderson: Notice came too late to affect plea/trial strategy; prejudice shown | Court: Not harmless — notice arrived too late to permit meaningful defense decisions; prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mancebo, 27 Cal.4th 735 (Cal. 2002) (holding unpleaded sentencing circumstance under One Strike law cannot be used to increase punishment; emphasizing fair‑notice and statutory pleading requirements)
- People v. Riva, 112 Cal.App.4th 981 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (held pleading an enhancement as to some counts sufficed for others; disapproved by the Supreme Court here)
- People v. Botello, 183 Cal.App.4th 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (refused to apply vicarious §12022.53(e) on appeal where information pleaded only personal‑use enhancements)
- People v. Toro, 47 Cal.3d 966 (Cal. 1989) (permitted treating non‑objected lesser‑offense instruction as informal amendment where defendant benefited; Court distinguishes Toro from this case)
- People v. Garcia, 28 Cal.4th 1166 (Cal. 2002) (describes §12022.53 enhancement scheme and pleading requirements)
- People v. Houston, 54 Cal.4th 1186 (Cal. 2012) (addressed forfeiture of pleading‑defect claims where defendant received midtrial notice of potential sentence)
- People v. Palacios, 41 Cal.4th 720 (Cal. 2007) (discussed imposition of multiple §12022.53 enhancements and §654 interplay)
- People v. Arias, 182 Cal.App.4th 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (rejected implied consent by silence to additions that increase punishment)
- People v. Sandoval, 140 Cal.App.4th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (recognized oral amendment in open court with defendant/counsel present can provide adequate notice)