35 Cal. App. 5th 1
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant David Bates shot and killed M.H.; charged with murder and assault, convicted of voluntary manslaughter; sentenced to 18 years.
- Evidence: witnesses reported a struggle; M.H. had high methamphetamine levels; some witnesses testified M.H. had previously threatened others and once displayed a shotgun; no gun recovered, poor crime-scene handling, and no gunshot residue testing.
- Defense argued self-defense/defense of another, pointing to victim's prior threats and violent conduct; defendant did not testify.
- Jury acquitted of second-degree murder but convicted of voluntary manslaughter; defendant admitted prior convictions (a strike and a prison term) at a later proceeding.
- Trial court doubled a 6-year midterm to 12 for the strike, added 5 years under Penal Code §667(a)(1) (prior serious felony enhancement) and 1 year under §667.5(b); on appeal the court strikes the unauthorized five-year §667(a)(1) enhancement and corrects the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Bates’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing bracketed CALCRIM No. 505 language allowing jury to consider victim’s past threats/harm without showing defendant knew of them | Instruction as given (requiring consideration of circumstances known to defendant) was sufficient; prior conduct irrelevant to defendant’s state of mind unless known to him | Court should have instructed that jury may consider victim’s prior threats/harm when assessing reasonableness even if defendant lacked direct knowledge | No error — knowledge of victim’s prior conduct is implicitly required; omission proper because no evidence defendant knew of prior threats |
| Whether imposition of 5‑year §667(a)(1) enhancement was authorized without being alleged in the information or admitted | Enhancement properly imposed despite not being alleged because defendant did not object at sentencing | Enhancement unauthorized because information did not allege §667(a)(1) and defendant did not admit it for that purpose; violates notice/due process | Enhancement stricken as unauthorized |
| Whether defense counsel ineffective for failing to object to the §667(a)(1) enhancement | Not argued to have prejudiced outcome | Counsel’s failure prejudiced defendant because enhancement was unauthorized | Court did not reach ineffectiveness because enhancement is stricken on independent ground |
| Whether remand required to permit trial court to exercise discretion under SB 1393 to strike prior serious felony | People did not oppose modification | Defendant sought remand to allow court to exercise new discretion to strike the enhancement | Enhancement stricken; judgment modified accordingly and abstract corrected |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (discussing duty to instruct on applicable defenses)
- People v. Tafoya, 42 Cal.4th 147 (prior threats relevant to self-defense only if defendant knew of them)
- People v. Minifie, 13 Cal.4th 1055 (defendant must prove his own state of mind; perceptions matter)
- People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal.4th 1073 (objective reasonableness measured against defendant’s perceptions and knowledge)
- People v. Burgener, 41 Cal.3d 505 (instructions must be read as a whole)