People v. Butler
89 Cal.App.5th 953
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In Nov. 2020 Butler shot the victim after a motel fight; a jury convicted him of attempted voluntary manslaughter, assault with a firearm, and felon in possession; jury found true personal firearm use and great bodily injury enhancements.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed the upper term on the manslaughter count and the upper-term 10-year firearm enhancement, relying on multiple aggravating factors (violent conduct, great bodily harm, prior convictions of increasing seriousness, prior prison terms, unsatisfactory probation/parole), and one mitigating factor (victim may have been aggressor). Total term: 19 years 2 months.
- Senate Bill 567 (effective Jan. 1, 2022) amended §§ 1170 and 1170.1 to limit imposition of upper terms to circumstances either (a) admitted, (b) found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or (c) based on certified prior convictions.
- The People conceded SB 567 applies retroactively to Butler’s nonfinal judgment; Butler sought resentencing under the new law. The parties disputed whether the sentencing error (relying on aggravators not found by a jury) was harmless.
- The court held SB 567 applied, adopted the two-step harmlessness test from People v. Lopez, concluded the record did not permit a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding that the jury would have found all relied-upon aggravators, and remanded for full resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 567 applies retroactively and requires resentencing | Conceded SB 567 applies retroactively but argued remand unnecessary if error was harmless | SB 567 applies and entitles defendant to resentencing unless harmless beyond the applicable test | SB 567 applies retroactively; remand required because error was not shown harmless under adopted test |
| Proper harmlessness standard when upper term was imposed based on aggravators not found by a jury | Sentencing under prior law may be upheld if harmless; urged no remand here | Error was prejudicial and requires resentencing | Adopted Lopez two-step method: (1) ask if court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt a jury would have found all relied-on aggravators; (2) if not, apply Watson (reasonable-probability) test to whether court likely would have imposed a shorter term. Remand was required on the facts here. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lopez, 78 Cal.App.5th 459 (2022) (adopted two-step harmlessness test for SB 567 sentencing errors)
- People v. Flores, 75 Cal.App.5th 495 (2022) (alternative harmlessness approach; court discussed whether a single aggravator proved beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient)
- People v. Dunn, 81 Cal.App.5th 394 (2022) (discussed harmlessness; took a different approach than Lopez)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (established the reasonable-probability standard for state-law harmless error review)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (2007) (full resentencing/remand principles when sentencing error is prejudicial)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (federal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt harmlessness standard for constitutional errors)
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) (federal law on how states define offenses and the jury-trial right)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (full resentencing rule when part of sentence is stricken)