54 Cal.App.5th 71
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- New Year’s Eve 2017: Hartland and A.S., who had a six‑month‑old son, argued; A.S. had been drinking (described as "buzzed/drunk").
- Hartland followed A.S. to a liquor‑store parking lot, grabbed and dragged her into his car over her repeated refusals and screams; A.S. resisted, screamed for help, and suffered bruises and scratches.
- In the car and afterward Hartland choked A.S., prevented her from exiting, and physically blocked her from leaving; deputies observed visible neck injuries but concluded A.S. was not heavily intoxicated.
- A jury convicted Hartland of kidnapping (Pen. Code § 207), assault likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245(a)(4)), and domestic violence resulting in traumatic condition (§ 273.5(a)); a prior conviction was found true as a strike and a prior serious felony; Hartland received a 21‑year sentence.
- On appeal Hartland argued the court should have instructed the jury under People v. Oliver and In re Michele D. that if an intoxicated victim lacked capacity to consent, kidnapping requires an illegal purpose or intent; the Court of Appeal declined to extend Oliver/Michele D. to intoxicated, resisting adults.
- The court remanded for the trial court to exercise post‑SB 1393 discretion to strike or dismiss the prior serious felony enhancement and ordered clerical correction of custody credits (36 conduct days; 279 total).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oliver/Michele D. rule (illegal purpose required when victim lacks capacity) applies to an intoxicated, resisting adult alleged kidnap victim | People: Oliver/Michele D. apply to unresisting infants/mentally impaired persons, not to resisting adults | Hartland: jury should have been instructed that if A.S. lacked capacity from intoxication, kidnapping requires illegal purpose/intent | Court: Declined to extend Oliver/Michele D. to intoxicated, resisting adults; resistance establishes lack of consent and suffices without showing illegal purpose/intent |
| Whether remand is required so trial court can exercise discretion under SB 1393 to strike prior serious felony enhancement | People: Remand unnecessary because record shows court would not have struck enhancement | Hartland: Remand required because court lacked discretion at sentencing and must be allowed to reconsider | Court: Remand required; record does not clearly show court would have refused to strike enhancement even if empowered to do so |
| Whether clerical errors in custody credits must be corrected | People: Agreed error should be corrected | Hartland: Requested correction to reflect oral pronouncement | Court: Ordered amendment of minute order and abstract to reflect 36 days conduct credit and 279 total days (oral pronouncement controls) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Oliver, 55 Cal.2d 761 (Cal. 1961) (rule that kidnapping of infants/mentally impaired who cannot consent requires illegal purpose or intent)
- In re Michele D., 29 Cal.4th 600 (Cal. 2002) (reaffirming Oliver and clarifying force/consent for unresisting children)
- People v. Daniels, 176 Cal.App.4th 304 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (applied Oliver to an unresisting adult who was completely incapacitated by intoxication)
- People v. Giardino, 82 Cal.App.4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (intoxication and consent analysis in sexual‑assault context: active resistance establishes lack of consent)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial court discretion under § 1385 to dismiss strikes; framework for reviewing whether remand is necessary)
- People v. Zamora, 35 Cal.App.5th 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (SB 1393 permitting courts to strike prior serious‑felony enhancements applies retroactively to nonfinal sentences)