People v. Humphrey CA5, F079393

Defendant Joseph Humphrey posted two threatening Facebook messages directed at C.H., his former father‑in‑law; one post was later sent to C.H. via an anonymous text. C.H. felt violated and testified he began carrying a pistol to bed and procured an emergency protective order.
After arrest, Humphrey admitted to Detective Gray that he made the posts and believed C.H.’s friends would see them.
The Tulare County jury acquitted on two counts, convicted Humphrey of the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats (count 1), and acquitted on counts 2 and 3; in bifurcated proceedings, two prior prison terms and one out‑on‑bail enhancement were found true.
The court instructed the jury on completed criminal threats (CALCRIM No. 1300) and on attempt generally (CALCRIM No. 460), but did not give the Chandler‑required attempt element that the intended threat be sufficient to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear.
The trial court sentenced Humphrey to four months in prison; Humphrey appealed raising Miranda/admissibility and ineffective assistance claims, instructional error, abstract of judgment correction, and strikes of prior term enhancements under SB 136.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Admission of statements despite alleged inadequate Miranda warnings; IAC if issue forfeited	People likely argued statements were admissible or any error forfeited	Humphrey argued Miranda warnings were inadequate; if forfeited, counsel was ineffective for not preserving issue	Not addressed on merits—rendered moot by reversal on instructional error; appeal did not resolve Miranda/IAC claims
2) Failure to instruct jury on Chandler element for attempted criminal threats (reasonable person sustained fear)	People conceded instructional omission but argued error was harmless because a reasonable juror would find threats sufficient	Humphrey argued trial court had sua sponte duty to instruct on every element including Chandler’s requirement; omission prejudiced verdict	Reversed: omission was prejudicial; conviction reversed and case remanded for further proceedings
3) Abstract of judgment misstates sentence (four years v. four months)	People agreed abstract was incorrect and should be amended	Humphrey sought correction to reflect actual 4‑month sentence	Court directed amendment of abstract; matter remanded (correction ordered) but substantive relief rendered moot by reversal
4) Striking prior prison term enhancements under SB 136	People conceded enhancements should be stricken under SB 136	Humphrey sought striking of two enhancements	Agreed they should be stricken, but issue rendered moot by reversal; court noted parties’ concession

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Sup. Ct. 1966) (Miranda warning/admissibility standard)
People v. Chandler, 60 Cal.4th 508 (Cal. 2014) (attempted criminal threats requires showing the intended threat was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to be in sustained fear)
People v. Jackson, 178 Cal.App.4th 590 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (failure to give Chandler element on attempt was prejudicial and warranted reversal)
In re George T., 33 Cal.4th 620 (Cal. 2004) (elements of section 422 criminal threats articulated)
People v. Merritt, 2 Cal.5th 819 (Cal. 2017) (trial court’s duty to instruct sua sponte on elements)
People v. Cole, 33 Cal.4th 1158 (Cal. 2004) (constitutional standard for instructional omission review)