People v. Marin
240 Cal. App. 4th 1344
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Silvestre Cano Marin was convicted of felony DUI and related misdemeanors; a prior vehicular manslaughter conviction was alleged as a Three Strikes serious-felony enhancement.
- On initial appeal the prior-conviction true finding was vacated for procedural error; on remand a different jury found the prior vehicular manslaughter conviction a strike based on certified abstract of judgment and plea minute order.
- The prosecution introduced only the abstract of judgment and plea minute entry for the prior plea; it presented no complaint, plea colloquy, or underlying factual record.
- Vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code § 192(c)(1)) qualifies as a “serious felony”/strike only if the defendant "personally inflict[ed] great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice."
- The court held the evidence insufficient to prove the “personal infliction” element from the bare plea/judgment documents and reversed the strike finding; it remanded for further proceedings to permit the prosecution to present additional proof if it elects.
- The court addressed whether Descamps alters California law (People v. McGee) on judicial factfinding about priors, whether defendant is entitled to a jury on the disputed prior-fact, and whether double jeopardy bars retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that prior vehicular manslaughter was a strike (personal infliction of great bodily injury) | Prosecution argued certified judgment demonstrating plea sufficed to prove the prior and its consequences as a strike | Marin argued the abstract/plea minute did not establish "personal infliction" required for a strike | Held: Evidence insufficient. Bare plea/abstract does not prove personal infliction; strike finding reversed and remanded. |
| Whether Descamps requires a jury trial on disputed non-elemental facts of a prior conviction | Respondent argued McGee allows limited judicial factfinding from prior record to resolve whether conviction qualifies as strike | Marin argued Descamps extends Apprendi and Shepard and entitles him to a jury on disputed factual issues about the prior | Held: Under Descamps, judicial factfinding beyond the statutory elements (McGee-style "realistically may have been based on conduct") violates the Sixth Amendment; defendant entitled to a jury on such disputed non-elemental facts unless waived/admitted in plea. |
| Validity of California's McGee procedure after Descamps | Respondent defended McGee's limited-record inquiry as permissible | Marin argued McGee-authorized factfinding is indistinguishable from the impermissible inquiry condemned in Descamps | Held: McGee to the extent it authorizes judicial factfinding beyond the elements is incompatible with Descamps and the Sixth Amendment. |
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial of the strike allegation after reversal for insufficiency | Respondent urged Monge/Barragan rule permitting retrial of prior allegations in noncapital sentencing proceedings | Marin argued that if Descamps requires a jury, retrial is barred by double jeopardy because the strike was reversed for insufficiency | Held: Double jeopardy does not bar retrial; Monge and Monge v. California remain controlling and permit retrial of noncapital prior allegations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (recognizing jury requirement for facts increasing penalty except for the fact of a prior conviction)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits documents sentencing courts may consult to charging papers, plea colloquy, plea agreement, jury instructions)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (clarifies limits on judicial factfinding about priors; modified categorical approach applies only to divisible statutes)
- People v. McGee, 38 Cal.4th 682 (California standard permitting limited inquiry into record of conviction to decide if prior qualifies as a strike)
- Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (double jeopardy does not bar retrial on prior-conviction allegation in noncapital sentencing)
- People v. Barragan, 32 Cal.4th 236 (California Supreme Court upholding retrial of strike allegation after reversal for insufficiency)