88 Cal.App.5th 1125
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Defendant Brandon Lewis pimped and trafficked three victims (A.W., T.W., and Jane Doe), two of whom were minors; convictions included human trafficking, pimping, pandering, kidnapping, assault with a firearm, and criminal threats, plus enhancements and a prior strike.
- A key trial dispute: a computer monitor/screen partially blocked Lewis’s view of A.W.’s face while she testified; defense raised the confrontation issue midstream.
- Jury convicted on counts 1–9; court found great-bodily-injury and firearm enhancements and imposed a de facto aggregate prison term of about 73 years.
- On appeal Lewis argued (1) Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation because he could not see A.W.’s face; (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to timely object; and (3) resentencing was required under Senate Bill No. 567 because the court imposed multiple upper terms without jury findings.
- The People conceded one sentencing arithmetic error on count 9 (upper term mis-specified). The Court of Appeal affirmed convictions (except as to sentencing), reduced count 9 from 16 to 12 years, vacated the aggregate sentence, and remanded for resentencing under amended Penal Code § 1170(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment — monitor blocked defendant’s view of A.W.’s face during testimony | No violation: defense counsel could see witness after adjustments; objection forfeited for first day; A.W.’s first-day testimony alone supported counts 1–7. | Confrontation Clause violated because defendant could not see accuser’s face while she testified. | Convictions on counts 1–7 affirmed. Court found forfeiture of first-day objection, rejected futility exception and IAC claim, and held A.W.’s first-day testimony was sufficient. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object earlier | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; tactical reasons possible; no prejudice shown. | Counsel was ineffective for not timely objecting to obstruction of view. | IAC claim rejected: record permits conceivable tactical explanations; appellate record inadequate to show deficiency or prejudice. |
| Unauthorized sentence on count 9 (pandering of minor) | People concede arithmetic error: upper term misstated. | Defendant seeks correction to proper statutory upper term. | Count 9 reduced from 16 to 12 years (upper term 6 doubled for strike), judgment modified. |
| Senate Bill No. 567 (amended §1170(b)) — need for resentencing for upper-term choices | Argues error harmless because a jury would have found at least one aggravating factor true beyond a reasonable doubt. | Argues remand required: SB 567 makes middle term presumptive and requires jury/stipulation for aggravating facts, so court lacked informed discretion. | Remand for resentencing ordered. Applying a Gutierrez-informed two-part test, the court could not say a jury would have found the aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt nor that the record clearly shows the court would have imposed the same upper terms under the new presumption; resentencing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1988) (Confrontation Clause guarantees face-to-face meeting with witnesses)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (Confrontation Clause may bow to important policy considerations if reliability is assured)
- People v. Arredondo, 8 Cal.5th 694 (Cal. 2019) (forfeiture and confrontation-clause principles)
- People v. Bonilla, 41 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2007) (no futility exception for belated constitutional objections)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (Cal. 2007) (pre-SB567 standard on aggravating circumstances and upper-term eligibility)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (trial court must exercise informed discretion; remand required where change in law alters sentencing discretion)
- People v. Flores, 75 Cal.App.5th 495 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (treatment of SB567 harmlessness issues)
- People v. Lopez, 78 Cal.App.5th 459 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (two-step test for SB567 harmlessness and need for resentencing)
- People v. Zabelle, 80 Cal.App.5th 1098 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (discusses Lopez approach and harmlessness analysis)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (federal constitutional errors are reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (state-law harmlessness standard)