People v. Burns CA5, F078505M

Background

On August 19, 2016 Burns robbed a bank; officers arrested him nearby with a replica firearm (BB gun), a cut‑up shirt mask, currency and a bank money‑tracking device, and a motel room key. A warrant for room 143 (his motel room) was obtained and officers seized the shirt, $121, two cell phones, a wallet, receipt, and a DNA swab.
Earlier proceedings: court ordered a competency exam under §1368; Dr. Dean Haddock prepared a competency report that included Burns’s compelled statements about hearing voices and delusions.
Burns pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and produced Dr. Thomas Middleton at the sanity phase (testified defendant was insane). The prosecution’s sanity expert, Dr. Gary Longwith, examined Burns, administered tests (including malingering screens), concluded Burns was malingering and sane, and had reviewed Dr. Haddock’s competency report after forming his own opinion.
Trial court denied Burns’s motion to quash the search warrant and denied his motion to exclude Dr. Longwith’s testimony; the court found Burns sane and adjudged guilt on stipulated counts and true the enhancement allegations.
Sentencing: aggregate 50 years‑to‑life plus 22 years, including four 5‑year prior serious‑felony enhancements (§667(a)(1)) and two one‑year prior‑prison enhancements (§667.5(b)); various fines and assessments imposed. On appeal the People conceded some enhancement errors; court remanded for limited resentencing adjustments and otherwise affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Burns)	Held
Validity of search warrant / suppression	Warrant affidavit provided probable cause (robbery facts, tracking device, motel key linking Burns to room) and officers reasonably relied on the warrant.	Affidavit failed to show probable cause that listed items (esp. electronic devices, firearms, DNA) would be evidence of a crime.	Warrant valid under commonsense Ventresca standard; even if marginal, good‑faith Leon exception applies — denial of suppression affirmed.
Use of immunized competency statements in sanity phase	Dr. Longwith had an independent basis (his own interview, tests, police reports); review of competency report after forming opinion did not constitute forbidden ‘‘use’’ of immunized statements.	Dr. Longwith impermissibly relied on Haddock’s competency report (and its fruits), using immunized statements in violation of the Fifth Amendment.	Court held no Fifth Amendment violation: Longwith’s opinion traced to independent sources (his exam and tests); mere review of report did not render testimony inadmissible; motion to exclude properly denied.
Prior serious‑felony enhancements (§667(a)(1)) and SB 1393 relief	People conceded some enhancements were invalid where multiple priors arose from the same case; remand appropriate to permit court discretion under SB 1393.	Three 1993 enhancements were not separately brought and tried and thus invalid; also sought SB 1393 consideration.	Two of the 5‑year enhancements (from the single 1993 case) stricken; remanded to allow the trial court to consider striking remaining §667(a)(1) enhancements under SB 1393.
Fines, fees, assessments; ability to pay (Dueñas)	People: remand will occur for resentencing on other grounds; court may allow Burns to request an ability‑to‑pay determination.	Failure to make an ability‑to‑pay finding violated due process (Dueñas) and fines/assessments should be stayed or stricken absent such a hearing.	Court declines to extend Dueñas here; applies Eighth Amendment/excessiveness analysis and finds fines/assessments not grossly disproportionate; on the record Burns could likely pay from future/prison wages so remand for ability‑to‑pay hearing denied.
Mental‑health pretrial diversion (§1001.36)	(People) Burton: defendant forfeited the issue by not seeking diversion below; the statute was in effect before trial/sentencing.	Burns argues §1001.36 applies retroactively / counsel ineffective for not seeking diversion.	Court finds Burns forfeited the claim by not requesting diversion at trial; ineffective‑assistance claim not resolved on direct appeal (record silent as to counsel strategy).
Prior prison‑term enhancements (§667.5(b)) and SB 136	People conceded retroactive relief under SB 136 where amendment limits prior‑term enhancements to sexually violent offenses.	Burns argued the 1991 robbery prior‑term enhancement is no longer valid under SB 136.	Court agreed: the 1‑year enhancement for the 1991 robbery stricken; the other prior‑term enhancement (for a sexually violent offense) remains.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1965) (magistrate review of affidavits; interpret affidavits in commonsense fashion when assessing probable cause)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrants later found lacking probable cause)
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (Fifth Amendment limits use of compelled statements in criminal prosecutions; competency exams are custodial for Fifth Amendment purposes)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1972) (use and derivative‑use immunity coextensive with Fifth Amendment privilege)
In re Hernandez, 143 Cal.App.4th 459 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (discussed scope of use/derivative‑use rule for competency exam fruits; distinguished on facts)
People v. Westerfield, 6 Cal.5th 632 (Cal. 2019) (standard for reviewing magistrate probable‑cause determinations)
People v. Mesa, 14 Cal.3d 466 (Cal. 1975) (Ventresca principles; avoid hypertechnical review)
In re Harris, 49 Cal.3d 131 (Cal. 1989) (to satisfy "brought and tried separately" prior proceedings must be formally distinct)
People v. Singleton, 182 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (expert exposure to immunized testimony permissible so long as testimony rests on independent sources)
People v. Farley, 46 Cal.4th 1053 (Cal. 2009) (harmless‑error/exclusion analysis and suppression principles)