People v. McDaniels
22 Cal. App. 5th 420
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Defendant Alpacino McDaniels was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm after a fatal shooting during a street fight in West Oakland.
- Jury found true three Penal Code §12022.53 firearm enhancements, including that McDaniels personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death.
- Trial court sentenced McDaniels to 50 years to life: 25 years-to-life for murder, consecutive 25 years-to-life for the §12022.53(d) death enhancement, and a concurrent 2-year term for the firearm-possession conviction; two lesser firearm enhancements were stayed.
- On appeal McDaniels challenged: (1) denial of a pinpoint identification instruction, (2) prosecutorial misconduct for commenting on his silence, (3) failure to stay the possession sentence, and (4) errors in custody credits and the abstract of judgment.
- After sentencing, S.B. 620 (effective Jan 1, 2018) gave courts retroactive discretion to strike §12022.53 enhancements; the appellate court invited briefing and neither party opposed remand for the trial court to exercise that discretion.
- The court affirmed convictions, ordered correction of custody credits and the abstract, and remanded for the trial court to consider striking the three firearm enhancements under S.B. 620.
Issues
| Issue | McDaniels' Argument | People/Appellate Response | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of pinpoint identification instruction about suggestive ID procedures | Trial court should have given a targeted instruction to address suggestive ID issues | No reversible instructional error; existing instructions sufficient | Denial not reversible; claim rejected |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for commenting on defendant's failure to testify | Prosecutor's comments improperly referenced McDaniels' silence and deprived him of due process | Comments were not prejudicial or improper in context | Claim rejected |
| Whether possession sentence should have been stayed | Possession term should run concurrently / be stayed | Trial court appropriately imposed concurrent 2-year term | Claim rejected (sentence as imposed affirmed except as to credits and abstract) |
| Custody credits and abstract of judgment errors | McDaniels seeks two additional days of custody credit; abstract misstates murder term as 50-to-life | Appellate court finds clerical/calc errors need correction | Court orders two additional days of custody credit and correction of abstract to show 25-to-life for murder |
| Need for remand under S.B. 620 to allow trial court to strike firearm enhancements | McDaniels favors remand so trial court can consider striking enhancements | People did not oppose remand; court examines standard for when remand is required | Remand ordered because record does not clearly show trial court would not have exercised discretion to strike enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.4th 1213 (appellate court standard that remand is required when trial court sentenced under belief it lacked discretion)
- People v. Gamble, 164 Cal.App.4th 891 (remand not required if record shows court clearly would not have exercised discretion)
- People v. Gutierrez, 48 Cal.App.4th 1894 (remand required unless record clearly indicates court would not have stricken allegations)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (holding that trial courts have discretion to strike priors in the interest of justice)
- People v. Woods, 19 Cal.App.5th 1080 (discussing retroactivity and application of S.B. 620 discretion)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (retroactivity principles for sentencing changes)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (applying harmless-error/Watson analysis to sentencing abuse of discretion)
- People v. Bravot, 183 Cal.App.3d 93 (appellate harmlessness in sentencing contexts)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (standard for prejudicial state-law error)