People v. Crisp CA4/1
D077382
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 6, 2021Background
- In May 2019 Crisp was convicted of resisting an officer and pleaded guilty to robbery; court imposed a six-year sentence (5-year upper term for robbery + 1-year prison-prior enhancement) but suspended execution and placed him on 3 years probation.
- On November 30, 2019 officers searched the house Crisp shared with his girlfriend and six children and found a revolver in a southeast bedroom (in a bag, in plain view) and four unspent .32-caliber rounds in a cigarette package in a bathroom adjacent to the master bedroom. A cigarette pack of the same brand was found in Crisp’s master bedroom.
- Crisp denied ownership, gave inconsistent statements about who had slept in the southeast bedroom, and refused to fully identify a person he initially named; girlfriend and a man named Andres testified someone else owned a (broken) gun and denied Crisp’s access to the southeast rooms.
- The trial court concluded there was probable cause that Crisp possessed the firearm/ammunition, revoked probation, and reimposed the six-year prison sentence.
- On appeal Crisp challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation for firearm possession, (2) the trial court’s use of the wrong legal standard, and (3) the one-year prior-prison enhancement under changes effected by Senate Bill 136.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation for firearm/ammunition possession | Constructive possession established by residence control, gun found in home bedroom, matching cigarette-pack ammo, ammunition fit the gun, and defendant’s inconsistent statements | Gun was in a different bedroom Crisp did not use; Andres owned the gun; no direct proof (no fingerprints/DNA) tying Crisp to the gun | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence supported inference of constructive possession by preponderance (residence, matching pack, location, inconsistent statements) |
| Trial court used wrong legal standard (stated "probable cause" instead of "preponderance") | People concede misstatement but say error was harmless given strength of evidence | Misstatement of standard invalidates revocation | Error acknowledged but harmless; applying correct preponderance standard would not have changed result |
| Applicability of SB 136 / retroactivity to §667.5 prior-prison enhancement | People relied on opposing position (but court followed controlling authority) | Crisp argued Estrada presumption applies because proceedings were not final when ameliorative law took effect | Held: Under People v. Esquivel the case was not final for Estrada purposes; enhancement stricken |
| Need for remand for resentencing after striking enhancement | People argued remand unnecessary because defendant already received maximum term | Crisp sought relief to vacate enhancement and resentence | No remand: court struck the one-year enhancement and directed amended abstract because maximum sentence already imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (ameliorative legislation applies when criminal proceedings not final)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative statutes)
- People v. Rodriguez, 51 Cal.3d 437 (standards and authority for probation revocation)
- In re Coughlin, 16 Cal.3d 52 (probation may be revoked even if evidence insufficient to convict)
- People v. Williams, 5 Cal.3d 211 (constructive possession may be inferred from dominion and control of premises)
- People v. Gastelum, 45 Cal.App.5th 757 (no remand required when enhancement erroneously imposed but defendant already received maximum sentence)