People v. Grandersin CA3
C091122
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- On May 28, 2019 defendant Deandrew Grandersin punched a companion during an altercation; the companion awoke in hospital with multiple facial fractures. Two unrelated witnesses testified they saw the prostrate victim being "stomped" in the head/neck while unconscious. Defendant claimed he only punched in self-defense and then "jumped up and down."
- The prosecutor charged two felonies: battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)) and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and alleged a prior strike and a GBI enhancement (§ 12022.7).
- Defense requested a unanimity instruction (CALCRIM No. 3500) because multiple distinct acts (the punch and the alleged stomps) could have supported conviction; the prosecutor initially objected but the court said it would revisit after trial. No further alteration of the instruction appears in the record.
- The court gave a modified CALCRIM No. 3500 and specifically instructed jurors to consider each count separately (CALCRIM No. 3515). The jury convicted on both counts, found the GBI and prior strike true, and the court sentenced defendant to a total of seven years and imposed assessments.
- On appeal defendant argued the unanimity instruction was insufficient because the People did not elect which act supported each count; he also challenged fines/fees. The Court of Appeal held the unanimity claim was forfeited for lack of timely objection or request for clarification, affirmed the convictions, but modified the judgment to impose statutory assessments per conviction (totaling two $40 court operations assessments and two $30 court facilities assessments) and corrected the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of unanimity instruction / forfeiture | People: defendant forfeited the claim by not requesting modification or repeated instruction; the instruction plus separate-count admonition was adequate | Grandersin: instruction was insufficient because it failed to tell jurors to specify which act supported each separate count after the People failed to elect | Court: Forfeited. In context of the full charge (including instruction to consider counts separately), a timely objection or request was required to preserve the claim; no reversible error shown |
| Court assessments and abstract errors | People: assessments should follow statute | Grandersin: trial court imposed only single assessments despite two convictions | Court: Modify judgment to impose assessments for each conviction (two $40 and two $30 assessments); correct abstract to reflect stayed 3-year sentence on count one |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Milosavljevic, 183 Cal.App.4th 640 (discusses unanimity instruction and when failure to object forfeits claim)
- People v. Ennis, 190 Cal.App.4th 721 (explains forfeiture where defendant abandons issue by not pursuing it)
- People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749 (§ 1465.8 assessment is not punishment)
- People v. Fleury, 182 Cal.App.4th 1486 (Gov. Code § 70373 assessment is not punishment)
- People v. Crittle, 154 Cal.App.4th 368 (§ 654 stay rule does not apply to nonpunitive assessments)
- People v. Smith, 24 Cal.4th 849 (unlawful sentence may be modified at any time)
- People v. Woods, 191 Cal.App.4th 269 (addresses modification of unlawful sentence)