People v. Gates CA4/1
D077631
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2021Background
- Defendant William Charles Gates punched and kicked a shelter resident, causing serious injury; he also spat at a corporal while in custody. Convicted at bench trial of assault (§245(a)(4)), battery with serious injury (§243(d)), and battery by gassing (§243(9)(a)).
- Court found multiple enhancements and priors true (personal infliction of great bodily injury, serious felony prior, strike prior, two one‑year prison priors); original sentence was 17 years.
- This court previously remanded to allow Gates to move to strike the serious felony prior; Gates moved and requested resentencing. A remote resentencing proceeded with Gates absent and without a written §977 waiver.
- At resentencing the court struck the two prison‑prior punishments, declined to strike the serious felony/strike, imposed a 16‑year term, awarded custody credits but left recalculation to CDCR, and imposed a $300 restitution fine plus statutory fees/assessments.
- On appeal the court held the absence without written waiver was error and the record did not show harmlessness; it also found custody credits must be recalculated, the criminal justice administration fee under former Gov. Code §29550 is unenforceable and must be struck, and the abstract must be amended to remove one‑year prison prior enhancements per SB 136. Remand for resentencing was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Gates) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Resentencing without written §977 waiver | Error harmless; court may rely on counsel's representation defendant waived appearance | Absence prejudiced him; would have told court about prosecution's earlier probation offer | Proceeding without written waiver was error; harmlessness not established; remand for resentencing |
| 2) Recalculation of custody credits | No dispute; CDCR can compute if needed | Credits should be recalculated now to reflect time served | Court must recalculate and award all presentence custody credits on remand |
| 3) Fines, fees, assessments and ability to pay | Restitution fine at statutory minimum is proper; assessments/fees imposed as mandatory minima | Challenges to nonpunitive fees based on inability to pay; seek stay pending Kopp | $300 restitution fine allowed (minimum); defendant may challenge nonpunitive fees' ability to pay on remand; former Gov. Code §29550 fee is unenforceable and any unpaid portion must be stricken |
| 4) One‑year prior prison‑term enhancements on abstract | No opposition to conforming to SB 136 where applicable | Enhancements should be removed where statutory amendment eliminates them | Abstract must be modified to strike one‑year prior prison term enhancements under amended §667.5(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
- People v. Garrison, 47 Cal.3d 746 (written waiver required under §977; presence relates to fairness of sentencing)
- People v. Buckhalter, 26 Cal.4th 20 (court must recalculate credit for time served after remand)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (due process right to be present when presence would affect fairness)
- People v. Cutting, 42 Cal.App.5th 344 (discussing §977 waiver and harmlessness review)
- People v. Kopp, 38 Cal.App.5th 47 (due process right to challenge nonpunitive fees/assessments for inability to pay)