People v. Learnard, B260824

Defendant Chadwick Learnard was convicted by jury of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245(a)(1)) and simple battery (§ 242); another assault count mistried. Trial court found two prior strikes (2002 aggravated assault; 2012 criminal threats), two serious-felony priors, and two prior prison terms and sentenced to an aggregate of 35 years to life.
Incident: defendant struck victim Charles with a skateboard at a restaurant parking lot, also assaulted the victim’s wife; victims’ infant was in the car; defendant was found hiding nearby and the skateboard was identified at scene.
Postarrest conduct: defendant spat at an officer, used epithets, and a 22-minute booking-cell video (no audio) showed agitated, erratic behavior; the court admitted this evidence over defense Evidence Code § 352 objection.
Procedural: defendant appealed, arguing admission of postarrest conduct was abused and that the 2002 aggravated-assault conviction did not qualify as a prior serious felony/strike because the record did not prove the conviction was based on use of a deadly weapon.
Court of Appeal: affirmed convictions and evidentiary rulings (harmless if erroneous), but reversed the trial court’s finding that the 2002 conviction was a qualifying serious felony/strike and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of postarrest conduct and booking-cell video	Evidence showed continuing course of conduct and rebutted self‑defense—relevant to intent/motive	Evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; § 352 exclusion required	Admission was not an abuse of discretion; any error was harmless given strong guilt evidence
Whether 2002 § 245(a)(1) conviction is a serious felony/strike	Record (info, abstract, prelim transcript, preconviction report) supports inference of deadly‑weapon use (baseball bat)	Record ambiguous: plea/abstract/reference to GBI alternative means; People failed to prove deadly‑weapon basis beyond reasonable doubt	Reversed: substantial evidence lacking because record could support alternative (force likely to produce GBI); treat as least serious form; remand for resentencing

People v. Delgado, 43 Cal.4th 1059 (Cal. 2008) (when statute criminalizes multiple means, conviction does not automatically support enhancement unless record shows qualifying means)
People v. McGee, 38 Cal.4th 682 (Cal. 2006) (court may examine the record of prior proceedings but inquiry is limited to that record)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (standard for abuse of discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
People v. Partida, 37 Cal.4th 428 (Cal. 2005) (harmless‑error standard for improperly admitted evidence)