People v. Johnson
244 Cal. App. 4th 384
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1998 Johnson brutally beat two paramedics; victims suffered fractures, vision/neurological damage and other serious injuries. He was convicted of battery causing serious bodily injury (Pen. Code §243(d)) and found to have personally inflicted serious bodily injury; sentenced to two concurrent 25-to-life terms as a third-striker.
- Johnson petitioned under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code §1170.126) to recall his life sentence and be resentenced as a second-strike offender.
- Trial court summarily denied the petition, reasoning Johnson’s §243(d) convictions involved "serious bodily injury" and therefore qualified as "serious felonies" under §1192.7(c)(8), making him ineligible for resentencing.
- Johnson appealed, arguing the jury’s finding of "serious bodily injury" is not equivalent to "great bodily injury," and that treating them as equivalent deprived him of a jury trial on the factual predicate for ineligibility.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether "serious bodily injury" (defined in §243(f)(4)) is equivalent to "great bodily injury" (defined in §12022.7(f)) for purposes of categorizing a conviction as a §1192.7(c)(8) serious felony and thus disqualifying under §1170.126(e)(1).
- The court affirmed denial: it held the two terms are equivalent for the eligibility inquiry, and Johnson’s convictions (with an express jury finding of personal serious bodily injury) render him ineligible for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "serious bodily injury" ( §243(d) / §243(f)(4) ) is equivalent to "great bodily injury" ( §12022.7(f) ) for determining a §1192.7(c)(8) serious felony and §1170.126 eligibility | People: The two terms are essentially equivalent for determining serious-felony status; court may consult the record of conviction to decide eligibility. | Johnson: "Serious bodily injury" is not the same as "great bodily injury"; jury’s finding of serious but not great bodily injury means he cannot be declared ineligible without a jury finding. | Court: For eligibility under §1170.126(e)(1), serious bodily injury is equivalent to great bodily injury; Johnson’s jury finding of personal serious bodily injury makes him ineligible. |
| Whether treating the §243(d) jury finding as equivalent to great bodily injury violates Johnson’s jury-trial rights | People: Eligibility determinations under §1170.126 are for the court and may rely on the record of conviction; Apprendi line doesn’t apply to resentencing eligibility. | Johnson: Converting the jury’s "serious" finding to a "great" finding effectively usurps the jury’s role on a factual predicate. | Court: No deprivation—eligibility is a collateral, judge-determined inquiry; existent case law permits using the record; no Apprendi violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Santana, 56 Cal.4th 999 (discusses differences in statutory definitions but recognizes overlap between "serious" and "great" bodily injury in many contexts)
- People v. Taylor, 118 Cal.App.4th 11 (held in a particular record jury distinguished serious vs. great bodily injury; jury-trial concern where record showed conscious distinction)
- People v. Moore, 10 Cal.App.4th 1868 (supports equivalence of serious and great bodily injury for serious-felony classification)
- People v. Arnett, 139 Cal.App.4th 1609 (distinguishes Taylor; court may find serious-felony status where jury made no contrary finding)
- People v. Osuna, 225 Cal.App.4th 1020 (resolving that Apprendi does not control §1170.126 eligibility; courts may consult record of conviction)
- People v. Blakely, 225 Cal.App.4th 1042 (court may examine relevant portions of the record of conviction to determine §1170.126 disqualifying factors)