People v. McInnis
63 Cal.App.5th 853
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Alphonzo McInnis was tried for sexual offenses against a minor and for aggravated kidnapping; jury convicted him of forcible rape/oral copulation counts and the §209(b) aggravated kidnapping count(s) tied to those sex offenses; One Strike §667.61(d)(2) kidnapping circumstance found true for the sex counts.
- The underlying offense (April 19, 2018): a 15‑year‑old was grabbed, threatened with a gun, moved into a yard/fenced area, sexually assaulted (vaginal and oral), and DNA from the victim matched defendant.
- The trial court sentenced McInnis to three consecutive life terms without parole (LWOP) for the rape/oral copulation counts; imposed and suspended a $10,000 parole‑revocation restitution fine; the abstract incorrectly cited §667.7 instead of §667.61.
- On appeal defendant argued: (1) the aggravated kidnapping statutes (§209(b) and §667.61(d)(2)) are unconstitutionally vague (relying on Johnson), (2) the court erred in stating its reasons for consecutive LWOP terms, (3) the parole revocation fine under §1202.45 is inapplicable, and (4) the abstract must be corrected.
- The Court of Appeal rejected the vagueness challenge, agreed the trial court’s stated reason for consecutive LWOP terms was improper and remanded for resentencing, struck the §1202.45 fine, and ordered correction of the abstract to reflect sentencing under §667.61.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of aggravated kidnapping (§209(b) and §667.61(d)(2)) | Statutes are constitutional; asportation standard applies to real‑world facts and is administrable | Movement/asportation language is vague under Johnson’s residual‑clause reasoning | Rejected: statutes are not unconstitutionally vague; Johnson inapplicable because statutes require application to real‑world facts rather than imagining an "ordinary case" abstraction |
| Consecutive LWOP terms | Trial court relied on multiple aggravating factors supporting consecutive LWOPs | Court relied improperly on the possibility of appellate reversal as the reason for imposing consecutive rather than concurrent terms | Remanded for resentencing: sole stated reason (risk of appellate reversal) was improper; trial court must exercise discretion using proper factors |
| Parole‑revocation restitution fine (§1202.45) | Fine applies because a stayed parole‑eligible term existed for count 5 | Overall sentence is LWOP so §1202.45 does not apply to this defendant | Reversed as to fine: §1202.45 inapplicable where the defendant’s overall sentence does not include parole; $10,000 fine stricken |
| Abstract of judgment error | Abstract should reflect correct sentencing statute (§667.61) | Clerk’s entry is a clerical error; needs correction | Directed correction: abstract must be amended to show sentencing under §667.61 and that the parole fine was stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015) (ACCA residual‑clause holding that an ordinary‑case, judge‑imagined risk inquiry is unconstitutionally vague)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (applied Johnson to invalidate a similar federal residual‑risk provision)
- People v. Ledesma, 14 Cal.App.5th 830 (2017) (rejected vagueness challenge to California aggravated‑kidnapping asportation requirement)
- People v. Dominguez, 39 Cal.4th 1141 (2006) (explaining aggravated‑kidnapping asportation and risk factors depend on particular facts and context)
- People v. Burbine, 106 Cal.App.4th 1250 (2003) (factors and limits for imposing consecutive sentences; cautions about sentencing based on appellate survivability)
- People v. Oganesyan, 70 Cal.App.4th 1178 (1999) (§1202.45 inapplicable where the defendant’s overall sentence does not include parole)