People v. Morgan
194 Cal. App. 4th 79
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Morgan pleaded guilty in 2000 to brandishing a hammer under Penal Code section 417(a)(1) with a hate crime enhancement under section 422.7(a).
- The plea carried an expectation that the conviction could be used to increase punishment for future offenses, potentially as a serious/violent felony.
- In 2008, Morgan committed assault with a deadly weapon, then was found guilty of that offense and of failing to appear, with a prior serious felony and strike found true in a bifurcated proceeding.
- The trial court sentenced Morgan to a total term of 12 years and four months, including a five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony and a doubling of base terms.
- On appeal, Morgan contends the prior conviction did not qualify as a serious felony under §1192.7(c)(23); the People contend the brandishing offense, elevated to a felony by §422.7, satisfies that statute, and the court agrees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior hammer brandishing with hate crime enhancement qualifies as a prior serious felony | People argues it qualifies under §1192.7(c)(23) as using a dangerous weapon during a felony. | Morgan argues the §422.7 elevation does not render the prior conviction a serious felony under §1192.7(c)(23) and relies on Montes and Briceno. | Yes; the prior conviction qualifies as a serious felony. |
| Whether §422.7 is a penalty enhancement or an alternative to the underlying offense for purposes of prior serious felony analysis | People maintains §422.7 acts as an independent penalty elevating the offense to a felony. | Morgan contends it is a sentencing enhancement tied to the underlying misdemeanor. | Section 422.7 is an independent penalty elevation, not a sentencing enhancement. |
| Whether bootstrapping concerns in Ulloa/Briceno are present in this case | People asserts conduct can be used for both felony status and serious felony status without bootstrapping issues. | Morgan relies on Ulloa to argue no bootstrapping when converting the same conduct to multiple penalties. | No bootstrapping in this case; conduct differed between felony status and serious felony status. |
| Whether the record supports personally using a dangerous or deadly weapon in the prior conviction | People argues transcripts show Morgan used a weapon during the prior offense to satisfy §1192.7(c)(23). | Morgan disputes the factual basis tying the prior conviction to personally using a weapon. | Record supports that Morgan personally used a deadly/dangerous weapon. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wallace, 109 Cal.App.4th 1699 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (section 422.7 is a penalty enhancement not a substantive offense; elevates misdemeanor to felony)
- People v. Ulloa, 175 Cal.App.4th 405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (bootstrapping concerns with gang-related penalties and 1192.7(c)(28))
- People v. Montes, 31 Cal.4th 350 (Cal. 2003) (interplay of serious felony definitions and other sentencing provisions)
- People v. Briceno, 34 Cal.4th 451 (Cal. 2004) (bootstrapping concerns with gang-related enhancements)
- People v. Rodriguez, 47 Cal.4th 501 (Cal. 2009) (interactions among multiple enhancements and the greatest-term rule)
- People v. Jones, 47 Cal.4th 566 (Cal. 2009) (relationship between 12022.53 enhancements and 186.22 penalties; life-imprisonment implications)
- People v. Brookfield, 47 Cal.4th 583 (Cal. 2009) (alternative penalty provisions and bootstrapping in gang-related offenses)