195 Cal. App. 4th 801
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Prosecution relied on certified 'prison packets' to prove priors; defendants argued admission violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.
- Trial court found Perez had a prior prison term, three prior serious felonies, and three strikes; Hill had two prior serious felonies and two strikes.
- Prison packets were admitted as hearsay; packets contained documents prepared by penal institutions for non-testimonial purposes.
- Custodian certificates authenticating the packets were offered; underlying records deemed outside the Sixth Amendment scope because they were administrative in nature.
- The court sentenced Perez to 23 years and Hill to 18 years after striking some strikes; restitution and probation-revocation fines were imposed.
- Appellants appealed; the issues centered on constitutional admissibility of the packets, and the proper imposition/reduction of fines and an enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are prison packet documents admissible under the Sixth Amendment? | Perez/Hill contend custodial attestations are testimonial and violate confrontation. | Prosecution argues packets are non-testimonial; custodians’ certificates authenticate admissible records. | Admissible; records are non-testimonial and authentication is proper. |
| Must the four fines be reduced to $200 each? | Hill asserts fines were properly $600; APG agrees they were errors. | Fines may be imposed only once at conviction; revocation fines must match restitution fines. | Fines reduced to $200 each; reinstated as originally imposed. |
| Should the one-year enhancement for the prior prison term be imposed or stricken? | Perez argues for a continued enhancement alongside priors. | Concede error; enhancement should be removed. | One-year enhancement under 667.5(b) stricken. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 129 (2009) (distinguishes testimonial vs. non-testimonial certifications)
- People v. Moreno, 192 Cal.App.4th 692 (2011) (records outside Sixth Amendment scope when administrative in nature)
- U.S. v. Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2011) (cell phone records not within Sixth Amendment if ordinary course of business)
- People v. Johnson, 114 Cal.App.4th 284 (Cal. App. 2003) (limits on restitution and probation-revocation fines)
- People v. Downey, 82 Cal.App.4th 899 (Cal. App. 2000) (fines related to restitution statutes must be consistent)
- People v. Chambers, 65 Cal.App.4th 819 (Cal. App. 1998) (procedure for fines and concurrent vs. consecutive terms)
- People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 1993) (aggregation of penalties for priors under 667.5/667(a)(1))