People v. Hodge CA2/8
B305189
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- Sept. 13, 2019 domestic incident at defendant Damien Hodge’s girlfriend’s apartment: neighbors heard yelling and a loud crash; one neighbor heard Shanna say “stop, you’re choking me”; deputies observed red marks on Shanna’s neck.
- Charges: count 1 (injuring a spouse/girlfriend), count 2 (dissuading a witness), and on eve of trial count 3 (assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury). Two prior-strike allegations charged (2005 assault; 2014 burglary reduced under Prop. 47 and not pursued as a strike).
- Jury convicted Hodge of counts 2 and 3 and acquitted on count 1. Trial court bifurcated priors; at sentencing the court found Hodge admitted the 2005 strike and denied his Romero motion.
- Sentenced to 8 years (upper term 4 years on count 3 doubled for strike; concurrent midterm on count 2 doubled); presentence credits amended on appeal.
- Court of Appeal: affirmed convictions except vacated sentence and remanded for a new trial limited to the prior-conviction allegation (or for the court to obtain a knowing, voluntary admission), ordered resentencing and correction of clerical errors in minute order/abstract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court obtained a valid Boykin/Tahl waiver before accepting admission of the 2005 strike | Respondent concedes the record lacks an affirmative Boykin/Tahl colloquy and that limited reversal is warranted | Court violated constitutional rights by accepting prior-admission without a knowing, voluntary waiver | Limited reversal: vacate sentence and remand for a new trial on the prior or to obtain a valid waiver/admission; then resentence |
| Whether denial of Romero motion (striking the strike) was an abuse of discretion | People argued the court properly considered defendant’s history and denied relief | Court failed to consider Williams factors, relied on false/irrelevant facts (e.g., reliance on felonies reduced by Prop. 47), and ignored remoteness and rehab factors | No abuse of discretion; trial court did not err in denying Romero motion |
| Whether sentencing minute order and abstract of judgment contain errors | People did not oppose correction | Defendant challenged clerical mischaracterizations (e.g., labeling count 3 a serious and violent felony) | Errors must be corrected on remand; clerk’s minutes/abstract to be amended |
| Appropriate remedy/remand scope | People agreed limited remand appropriate given waiver defect | Defendant sought reversal as to sentence and correction | Court vacated sentence, ordered new limited trial or valid admission on prior, then new sentencing and corrected abstract/minute order |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (constitutional waiver of trial rights must be voluntary and intelligent)
- In re Tahl, 1 Cal.3d 122 (Cal. 1969) (same principle under California law)
- People v. Farwell, 5 Cal.5th 295 (Cal. 2018) (record must affirmatively show voluntary intelligent waiver even absent formulaic admonitions)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (authority discussing striking prior convictions in the interest of justice)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (Cal. 1998) (factors trial court should consider when deciding whether a defendant falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes law)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (Romero denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Avila, 57 Cal.App.5th 1134 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (abuse of discretion may be shown where trial court considers impermissible factors)