People v. Brewer
F070564
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- On Feb 10, 2012, 16‑year‑old Jeremiah Brewer entered Elizabeth F.’s first‑floor apartment, forced her into her bedroom and digitally penetrated her; she identified Brewer and he later admitted part of the encounter to police.
- Brewer was first processed in juvenile court; after a contested fitness hearing the juvenile court found him unfit and referred the case for adult prosecution.
- Criminal charges were filed June 8, 2012; Brewer was convicted at a court trial of sexual penetration by force (Pen. Code § 289), assault with intent during first‑degree burglary (§ 220(b)), and kidnapping to commit rape/penetration (§ 209(b)(1)); multiple One‑Strike findings (§ 667.61) were found true.
- He was sentenced to an unstayed term of 25 years‑to‑life. Appeal was pending when voters enacted Proposition 57 (Nov. 8, 2016).
- On rehearing the Court of Appeal addressed (1) sufficiency of evidence for aggravated kidnapping and related One‑Strike findings; (2) whether subdivision (d)(2) and (e)(1) findings of § 667.61 may both stand; (3) Eighth Amendment/cruel‑and‑unusual and ineffective assistance claims; and (4) whether Proposition 57 applies retroactively to his nonfinal case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping to commit sexual offense (§ 209(b)(1) and § 667.61(d)(2)/(e)(1)) | Evidence shows forcible movement into a secluded bedroom that increased risk of harm; supports aggravated kidnapping and One‑Strike findings | Movements inside the apartment were incidental to the sexual assault and did not substantially increase risk | Court: Evidence sufficient — moving victim ~10–12 feet then into closed bedroom away from public view was more than incidental and substantially increased risk |
| Can § 667.61(d)(2) and (e)(1) findings both be true? | § 667.61(e)(1) is definitional and does not preclude an additional (d)(2) finding; both can stand and statute prescribes sentencing rules | (Brewer) argued (e)(1) exception precludes (d)(2) finding | Court: Both findings may stand; sentencing follows statutory scheme (subd. (a) where applicable); (e)(1) is definitional, not exclusive |
| Cruel and/or unusual punishment and ineffective assistance for not objecting | State: 25‑to‑life under One‑Strike is constitutional given offense gravity; counsel need not object | Brewer: At 16 with no priors, 25‑to‑life is cruel/unusual; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Court: Sentence not grossly disproportionate; Eighth Amendment and state‑constitutional tests satisfied; counsel not ineffective |
| Retroactivity of Proposition 57 to nonfinal convictions | People: Proposition 57 contains no express retroactivity for juvenile provisions; presumption against retroactivity controls; Estrada exception inapplicable because Prop 57 does not directly reduce penalty for a particular offense | Brewer: Estrada presumption favors retroactivity — Prop 57 reduces juvenile punishment range, creates new transfer procedure and de facto defense | Court: Prop 57 does not apply retroactively here; Estrada limited to statutes that expressly mitigate punishment for a particular crime; voters showed no clear intent to reach nonfinal cases |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rayford, 9 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (movement to secluded location can substantially increase risk of harm)
- People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119 (Cal. 1969) (aggravated kidnapping requires movement not merely incidental and that increases risk)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (statutory amelioration of punishment presumed retroactive to nonfinal judgments in certain contexts)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (limits Estrada; Estrada applies narrowly when statute mitigates punishment for a particular crime)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (juvenile waiver procedures require basic due process protections)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional)
- People v. Dominguez, 39 Cal.4th 1141 (Cal. 2006) (short movements into more secluded areas can increase risk and satisfy aggravated kidnapping test)