59 Cal.App.5th 753
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2017 Ernest Choi, a paralegal student at Los Angeles City College, sent a series of erratic texts/calls to classmates in his study group; victims included Kareem Williams, Leslie Castillo, and Andrianna Martirosyan.
- On December 16, 2017 (finals day) Choi told fellow student Carolyn Delgado by phone, "I need to end Kareem and Leslie," and made other messages ("Exterm87", axe photo, web search for "confirm kill count") that classmates perceived as threatening.
- Classmates and a professor reported safety concerns; Choi did not attend finals and was later suspended. Law enforcement found an axe matching a photo Choi sent; no guns were found in his apartment.
- Choi was convicted by a jury of three stalking counts (Pen. Code § 646.9) and two criminal threats counts (Pen. Code § 422), represented himself at trial, and received a seven-year sentence that included two one-year prior prison-term enhancements under former § 667.5(b).
- On appeal Choi challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for the criminal threats convictions, (2) exclusion of a proposed defense witness (Patrick Seaton), and (3) the trial court's denial of advisory counsel; the Attorney General urged affirmance but conceded nothing on these points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal threats (§ 422) | The People: statement to Delgado and surrounding threats and behavior showed an unequivocal, specific, and imminent threat that caused reasonable sustained fear | Choi: the "I need to end..." remark was ambiguous and not an intended threat to be conveyed to victims; not sufficiently imminent | Affirmed. Substantial evidence supported threats because of context, pattern of messages, recipients' reasonable fear, and inference Choi intended Delgado to convey the threat |
| Exclusion of defense witness Patrick Seaton | People: Seaton's proposed testimony would be cumulative/irrelevant and some topics would be hearsay | Choi: Seaton would corroborate Choi’s benign intent that morning and undermine Williams’s testimony; exclusion violated right to present a defense | Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion—the proffered testimony was cumulative and added little; ordinary evidentiary rules do not violate the right to present a defense |
| Denial of advisory counsel for pro per defendant | People: trial court properly exercised discretion considering defendant’s education, abilities, and case circumstances | Choi: court applied a blanket policy ("That’s not the way it’s done in this courthouse") and failed to exercise discretion | Affirmed. Court’s offhand remark was erroneous if read as blanket rule, but record shows the court understood and exercised discretion based on individualized factors |
| Sentencing under SB 136 and fee correction | People: remand required to correct unauthorized enhancements and allow resentencing discretion; correct fees to be reflected | Choi: (argued waiver of challenge but no substantive defense to retroactive application) | Remanded. Two prior one-year § 667.5(b) enhancements stricken under SB 136; full resentencing ordered; abstract of judgment fee for criminal conviction assessment corrected to $150 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re George T., 33 Cal.4th 620 (2004) (elements and analysis for criminal threats under § 422)
- People v. Wilson, 186 Cal.App.4th 789 (2010) (substantial-evidence review for threats and contextual analysis)
- David L. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.3d 1655 (1991) (conviction based on threat to third party where intent to convey to victim proved)
- People v. Felix, 92 Cal.App.4th 905 (2001) (threats made in confidential therapeutic setting distinguished)
- People v. Crandell, 46 Cal.3d 833 (1988) (advisory counsel is discretionary; court must exercise case-specific judgment)
- People v. Bigelow, 37 Cal.3d 731 (1984) (court’s failure to exercise discretion on advisory practices is error)
- People v. Debouver, 1 Cal.App.5th 972 (2016) (factors to consider when deciding appointment of advisory counsel)
- People v. Hernandez, 51 Cal.4th 733 (2011) (blanket courtroom security practices impermissible; need individualized assessment)
- People v. Winn, 44 Cal.App.5th 859 (2020) (retroactive application of SB 136 to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Lopez, 42 Cal.App.5th 337 (2019) (SB 136 eliminated certain § 667.5(b) enhancements; remand/resentencing guidance)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (when part of a sentence is stricken, remand for full resentencing may be appropriate)
- People v. Robinson, 37 Cal.4th 592 (2005) (ordinary evidence rules do not unconstitutionally infringe right to present a defense)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (1996) (unauthorized sentences may be corrected at any time)