People v. Jonathan R.
3 Cal. App. 5th 963
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jonathan R., a juvenile, stabbed a victim with a folding pocket knife during a brawl; the victim required a five‑day hospital stay.
- Juvenile wardship petition alleged violations of Penal Code §245(a)(1) (assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm) and §245(a)(4) (assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury), with enhancements for personal use of a deadly weapon (§12022(b)(1)) and inflicting great bodily injury (§12022.7(a)).
- The juvenile court found both counts and all enhancements true and committed Jonathan to a youth program with a maximum nine‑year confinement; it imposed a broad warrantless electronic‑device search probation condition.
- On appeal Jonathan argued (1) he could not be convicted under both §245(a)(1) and (a)(4) because they are the same offense, (2) the §12022(b)(1) weapon enhancement duplicates an element of §245(a)(1), and (3) the electronic search condition was overbroad.
- The Court of Appeal applied People v. Gonzalez and People v. Aguilar, held that although separate subdivisions generally permit separate convictions, §245(a)(4) is necessarily included within §245(a)(1) when the assault is committed with a deadly weapon, struck the (a)(4) finding and the §12022(b)(1) enhancement, narrowed the search condition, and remanded for recalculation of confinement and fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Jonathan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant may be convicted under both §245(a)(1) and §245(a)(4) for the same act | Subdivisions are separate offenses; multiple convictions permissible under Gonzalez | The two subdivisions merely describe alternative means of a single offense; cannot convict for both | Subdivisions are generally separable but here (a)(4) is necessarily included within (a)(1) when assault involved a deadly weapon; (a)(4) finding vacated |
| Whether §245(a)(4) is a lesser‑included offense of §245(a)(1) when assault involved a weapon | (AG) argues (a)(4) covers non‑weapon assaults (hands/feet) and is not included | (Jonathan) argues that assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury is necessarily included when a weapon was used | Court held Aguilar controls: a weapon is ‘‘deadly’’ only if used in a way likely to produce great bodily injury, so (a)(1) necessarily includes (a)(4) in that context |
| Whether the §12022(b)(1) weapon enhancement may be imposed for a §245(a)(1) conviction | AG did not contest but argued remand unnecessary because enhancement didn’t affect term | Jonathan: enhancement duplicates an element of §245(a)(1) and must be stricken | Held enhancement stricken because use of a deadly weapon is an element of §245(a)(1) under §12022(b) exception; remand for recalculation is required |
| Whether the warrantless electronic‑device search probation condition is valid | People argued such conditions are permissible for supervision | Jonathan argued the condition was vague, overbroad, and violated privacy/First Amendment | Court found an unrestricted condition overbroad; directed a narrowed, tailored search condition limited to media reasonably likely to reveal violations (drugs/other probation violations) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal.4th 533 (2014) (statutory subdivisions that are self‑contained with distinct elements/punishments generally permit separate convictions)
- People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal.4th 1023 (1997) (instrument is a "deadly weapon" only when used in a manner capable of producing great bodily injury; force likely to produce great bodily injury clause covers non‑instrument attacks)
- In re Mosley, 1 Cal.3d 913 (1970) (prior treatment of former §245 as a single offense when weapon and great‑force clauses were alternative means)
- People v. Reed, 38 Cal.4th 1224 (2006) (elements test and limits on multiple convictions/punishments; discussion of lesser included offenses)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (2008) (probation conditions reasonably related to future criminality and probation supervision can justify intrusions on privacy)
- People v. McGee, 15 Cal.App.4th 107 (1993) (§12022 enhancement cannot be applied where use of a deadly weapon is an element of the underlying offense)