40 Cal.App.5th 525
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- On July 8, 2014, defendants Bryant and Jackson were involved in a shooting in Antioch that killed Kenneth Cooper; both were tried and convicted of first-degree murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and felon-in-possession; Bryant was also convicted of assault with a semiautomatic firearm.
- The information alleged gang enhancements and multiple firearm enhancements under Penal Code § 12022.53; the jury found the enhancements true; Bryant was sentenced to 53 years-to-life and Jackson to 50 years-to-life.
- After conviction, Senate Bill 1437 (felony murder reform) and SB 620 (discretion to strike certain firearm enhancements) were enacted; Bryant sought reversal/relief under SB 1437 on appeal and both defendants sought remand under SB 620.
- Defendants raised Batson/Wheeler challenges, arguing the prosecutor improperly used peremptory strikes to remove four African‑American prospective jurors; the trial court denied the Batson motions.
- The trial court imposed consecutive 25‑year‑to‑life terms under § 12022.53(d) though subdivision (d) had not been pleaded for the murder count; the People conceded error as to the subdivision cited in the abstract.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed convictions but: (1) held SB 1437 relief must proceed via a § 1170.95 petition in the trial court (not by direct reversal), (2) rejected the Batson claims, (3) remanded for the trial court to decide whether to strike the firearm enhancements under SB 620, and (4) directed correction of the enhancement sentencing to § 12022.53(c) 20‑year terms if the enhancements are not struck.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive relief under SB 1437 (felony murder reform) | SB 1437 applies but relief must be sought via trial‑court § 1170.95 petition; no direct reversal on appeal. | Bryant: conviction should be reversed on direct appeal under In re Estrada because SB 1437 eliminated the felony‑murder theory used to convict him. | Court: Affirmed conviction; SB 1437 is retroactive but defendants must use the § 1170.95 petition procedure in trial court; remand for opportunity to petition. |
| Batson/Wheeler challenge to peremptory strikes of African‑American jurors | Prosecutor: strikes were for race‑neutral reasons (negative contacts with law enforcement, occupation, prior hung jury, etc.). | Defendants: strikes were pretextual and amounted to group‑based exclusion of African‑American jurors. | Court: No Batson/Wheeler violation; trial court credited prosecutor's race‑neutral reasons and substantial evidence supports credibility. |
| Remand under SB 620 (discretion to strike firearm enhancements) | People: remand unnecessary because record shows court would not have struck enhancements. | Defendants: entitled to remand so trial court can exercise new discretion under SB 620. | Court: Remanded for the trial court to exercise discretion whether to strike § 12022.53 enhancements; corrected abstracts if not struck. |
| Sentencing under § 12022.53 subdivision mispleading | People: concede trial court erred in imposing subdivision (d) term not pleaded; ask correction. | Defendants: trial court imposed unauthorized 25‑to‑life under (d) though only (b)/(c)/(e) were pled/found. | Court: Agreed error; on remand, if enhancements are not struck, court must impose § 12022.53(c) 20‑year terms and correct clerical errors in abstracts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (constitutional prohibition on race‑based exclusion from juries via peremptory strikes)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (retroactivity presumption for ameliorative criminal statutes)
- People v. DeHoyos, 4 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (statutory petition procedures may be exclusive remedy even when law changes retroactively)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016) (same principle regarding exclusive statutory remedy and appellate relief)
- People v. Scott, 61 Cal.4th 363 (Cal. 2015) (Batson/Wheeler framework and appellate review approach)
- People v. Reed, 4 Cal.5th 989 (Cal. 2018) (negative experiences with law enforcement can be race‑neutral basis for peremptory strike)
- People v. Winbush, 2 Cal.5th 402 (Cal. 2017) (comparative juror analysis and hung‑jury service as neutral reason)
- People v. Lenix, 44 Cal.4th 602 (Cal. 2008) (burden‑shifting Batson analysis and limits on raising comparative analysis for first time on appeal)
- Miller‑El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. 2005) (concerns about implicit bias and peremptory strikes; relevance to Batson analysis)
- People v. Hardy, 5 Cal.5th 56 (Cal. 2018) (application of Batson/Wheeler where trial court made implied prima facie finding)