People v. Carter
246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 498
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Carter and Hall participated as cohorts in an attempted robbery of Brandon’s residence; three people (Brandon, Albert, Aaron) were shot and killed at the scene.
- Carter was tried by jury, convicted of first‑degree murder (count 1) and attempted first‑degree robbery; firearm enhancement attached to count 1 was found "not true."
- The jury was instructed on alternative theories for murder: premeditation/deliberation and felony murder (and on aiding/abetting), and need not agree on the same theory.
- At sentencing the trial court found Carter had multiple objectives (robbery and an independent, retaliatory killing) and imposed a consecutive upper term for attempted robbery; Carter argued Penal Code § 654 barred consecutive punishment.
- Hall pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter, robbery, and admitted gang/firearm enhancements under a plea agreement; the trial court refused the parties’ recommended 8‑year term and imposed 12 years, later modified on appeal to strike a § 12021.5 term.
- After briefing, parties submitted supplemental briefing on Senate Bill 1437 (amending felony‑murder law and creating § 1170.95); court held any claim under SB 1437 must be pursued via § 1170.95 petition in superior court, not this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 654 barred consecutive sentences for murder and the underlying attempted robbery (Carter) | Carter: jury’s "not true" finding on personal firearm use shows jury convicted on felony‑murder only, so robbery and murder are same indivisible objective and § 654 requires stay. | People/Trial court: jury’s enhancement "not true" finding is not an affirmative finding that Carter was not the shooter; court may consider trial evidence and find multiple objectives by preponderance at sentencing. | Affirmed: trial court did not err; where jury was instructed on alternate theories and verdicts were general, sentencing court may rely on trial evidence (by preponderance) to find multiple intents and impose consecutive terms. |
| Whether trial court violated constitutional protections by considering acquitted/enhancement facts at sentencing (Carter) | Carter: judge’s post‑verdict factual finding (premeditation) conflicts with jury’s not‑true enhancement finding, raising Fifth/Sixth Amendment concerns. | People: Judge may consider conduct underlying acquitted findings at sentencing; § 654 determinations are for judge by preponderance and do not increase statutory maximums. | Held: No constitutional violation; judge’s § 654 factual findings do not implicate Sixth Amendment because they do not increase statutory maximum beyond jury’s verdict. |
| Whether Hall’s original 12‑year sentence violated plea terms / was abused (Hall) | Hall: court abused discretion by imposing 12 years despite plea agreement terms and parties’ recommendation that truthful testimony warranted 8 years. | People: trial court retained discretion under plea to sentence within statutory range; but a sentencing error occurred at resentencing. | Modified: Court struck the § 12021.5 firearm enhancement term and otherwise affirmed as modified; resentencing error found and corrected. |
| Whether defendants may raise retroactive relief claims under SB 1437 in this appeal | Defendants: request relief based on felony‑murder amendments under SB 1437. | People: legislative change creates § 1170.95 petition procedure; defendants must file in superior court first. | Held: Claims under SB 1437 cannot be raised on direct appeal; defendants must first petition under § 1170.95 in superior court. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Capistrano, 59 Cal.4th 830 (discusses § 654 purpose and divisible course‑of‑conduct test)
- People v. Osband, 13 Cal.4th 622 (permits sentencing court to impose multiple punishments when alternative theories exist and evidence supports premeditation)
- People v. McCoy, 208 Cal.App.4th 1333 (trial court may rely on facts in evidence at sentencing unless record shows jury relied on a specific factual basis foreclosing court’s discretion)
- People v. Siko, 45 Cal.3d 820 (sentencing court cannot adopt a factual basis contrary to the basis the jury plainly used for conviction)
- People v. Towne, 44 Cal.4th 63 (a sentencing judge may consider evidence underlying acquitted counts for sentencing purposes)
- People v. Santamaria, 8 Cal.4th 903 ("not true" weapon finding does not necessarily preclude judge from considering weapon use at sentencing; discusses inconsistent verdicts doctrine)
- People v. Hensley, 59 Cal.4th 788 (where murder is solely felony murder, sentence for underlying felony must be stayed)