People v. Pearson
250 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- On March 6, 2014, Douglas Wooley, a developmentally disabled man, was shot and killed in a drive-by shooting; two men exited a car and fired multiple rounds.
- Desmond McMiller, Patrick Pearson, and Deshonda Young were convicted after a jury trial; Pearson was convicted of first degree murder, assault with a machine gun/assault weapon on a witness, possession of a firearm by a felon, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and dissuading a witness; jury found firearm and gang enhancements.
- At initial sentencing (Dec. 2015) Pearson received a total of 72 years to life, including a 25-years-to-life enhancement under Penal Code § 12022.53.
- On direct appeal the convictions were affirmed, but because Senate Bill No. 620 (amending § 12022.53 to allow striking the enhancement under subdivision (h)) was enacted while the appeal was pending, the case was remanded to allow the trial court to exercise discretion to strike the enhancement.
- On remand the trial court denied Pearson’s motion to strike the § 12022.53 enhancement, citing the extreme violence, the victim’s vulnerability, use of a weapon, gang involvement, and that the defendants acted in concert; Pearson appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike the enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Pearson's Argument | Trial Court/People's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike the § 12022.53 firearm enhancement under newly enacted subdivision (h) | Remand required fresh consideration of factors including future dangerousness; court improperly relied only on offense severity and lumped Pearson with a more culpable co-defendant | Court properly considered standard sentencing factors (California Rules of Court rules 4.410, 4.421, 4.423, 4.428) and the violent, callous nature of the crime, victim vulnerability, weapon use, and gang participation | Denial of motion to strike affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Garcia, 28 Cal.4th 1166 (describing § 12022.53 enhancements and vicarious liability)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (standards for appellate review of sentencing discretion and abuse of discretion)
- City of Sacramento v. Drew, 207 Cal.App.3d 1287 (reminding that trial court discretion is delimited by applicable legal standards)