191 Cal. App. 4th 765
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Morehead was convicted by a San Bernardino County jury of three counts of second degree robbery, one count of attempted second degree robbery, four counts of assault with a deadly weapon or by means likely to produce great bodily injury upon a peace officer, one misdemeanor resisting a peace officer, and four counts of second degree commercial burglary for offenses committed April 14, 21, and 22, 2008.
- The court found true allegations of two prior strike offenses, two serious felonies, and two prison priors, and sentenced Morehead to 200 years to life plus 10 years.
- On appeal, Morehead challenged (a) alleged instructional error for the court not sua sponte instructing that victims’ fear had to be reasonable, (b) insufficient evidence of a reasonable fear, and (c) failure to award presentence conduct credits properly.
- The People acknowledged Morehead was entitled to 40 days of presentence conduct credits in addition to 268 days of actual custody credits, and the appellate court modified the judgment to award 40 additional days for a total of 308 credits.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions, modified the judgment to include the 40 presentence credits, and remanded with directions to amend the abstract of judgment.
- Factual background and the court’s discussion emphasize the victims’ fear and the evidence supporting the fear element in the robberies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM 1600 required a reasonable fear element sua sponte. | Morehead contends fear must be both actual and reasonable. | People argues no sua sponte duty to amplify fear instruction. | No sua sponte duty; no reversible error. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the fear element for robbery. | Morehead asserts no reasonable fear by victims. | Victims’ reactions and circumstances show actual and reasonable fear. | Substantial evidence supports fear element. |
| Whether the presentence conduct credits were correctly calculated. | Morehead should receive 308 total days of credits. | Credits should be as originally computed. | Modify judgment to add 40 days credits for total 308. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cummings, 4 Cal.4th 1333 (1993) (general duty to instruct on elements; no sua sponte amplification required unless technical terms)
- Maury v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 342 (2003) (no sua sponte duty to amplify on technical elements; must request if needed)
- Anderson v. Cal. v. Supreme Court, 64 Cal.2d 633 (1966) (no sua sponte duty to explain non-technical term fear; common understanding)
- People v. Griffin, 33 Cal.4th 1015 (2004) (robbery fear elements; no automatic duty to add reasonable-fear concept)
- People v. Cuevas, 89 Cal.App.4th 689 (2001) (fear may be inferred from circumstances; explicit testimony not required)
- People v. Davison, 32 Cal.App.4th 206 (1995) (fear need not be explicit; inferred from conduct)
- People v. Mungia, 234 Cal.App.3d 1703 (1991) (supporting inference of fear where applicable)
- People v. Holt, 15 Cal.4th 619 (1997) (fear principles in robbery contexts)
- People v. Ramos, 106 Cal.App.3d 591 (1980) (fear element satisfied by conduct implying fear; not necessarily explicit)
- People v. Flynn, 77 Cal.App.4th 766 (2000) (fear can be implied without a weapon)
- People v. Flood, 18 Cal.4th 470 (1998) (harmless error standard for instructional issues)