People v. Kramis
147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 84
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Joseph Lawrence Kramis was convicted of assaulting Nicole J. by force likely to produce great bodily injury under former § 245, subd. (a)(1); the jury found not true an allegation of personally inflicted GBH (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
- A mistrial was declared on a second count for willful infliction of corporal injury upon a former cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)).
- Defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison.
- Defendant challenged the exclusion of evidence directly bearing on the victim’s credibility, the failure to require jury verdict specificity for the act counted as assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, the denial of probation, and presentence custody credit.
- The court addressed restitution under former § 1202.4, and the judgment was later modified to award 110 days of presentence custody and conduct credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excluding evidence about the victim’s credibility was reversible error | Kramis | Kramis | No reversible error |
| Whether verdicts must specify the particular act constituting the assault | Kramis | Kramis | Not required within the record of conviction |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying probation | Kramis | Kramis | Discretion affirmed (probation denial upheld) |
| Whether defendant is entitled to additional presentence custody/conduct credits | Kramis | Kramis | Held: 110 days total presentence custody credit (55 days custody + 55 days conduct) |
| Whether the $10,000 restitution fine was proper under Apprendi/Southern Union Co. | Kramis | Kramis | Fine within statutory range; Apprendi/Southern Union Co. do not preclude within-range discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (mandatory factual findings beyond the verdict must be proven to raise penalty)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (clarifies sentencing max tied to the verdict and non-jury findings)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (U.S. 2012) (Apprendi applies to criminal fines; use within-range discretion)
- People v. Urbano, 128 Cal.App.4th 396 (Cal. App. 2005) (distinguishes sentencing factors from enhancements within statutory range)
- People v. Blackburn, 72 Cal.App.4th 1520 (Cal. App. 1999) (restitution fine range under §1202.4; factors for setting amount)
- People v. Arata, 118 Cal.App.4th 195 (Cal. App. 2004) (restorationFine: reliance on conviction triggers fine; amount within range)
- People v. Chambers, 65 Cal.App.4th 819 (Cal. App. 1998) (restoration fine considerations)