189 Cal. App. 4th 1411
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Rasmussen convicted counts 2–5 after a bank incident; count1 (criminal threats) ended in mistrial.
- Sentence: 3 years in state prison for the felony count; misdemeanor terms were six months (count3), one year (count4), and one year (count5), all concurrent with each other and with the prison term.
- Total presentence custody credits: 520 days.
- Appeal seeks disclosure of sealed Pitchess motion transcript; challenges jury instruction on intent for §69; requests stay of misdemeanor sentences under §654; seeks retroactive application of 2009 §4019 amendments for additional credits.
- Trial court credited Rasmussen with 520 days; on remand the court must adjust credits to 662 days after retroactive §4019 amendments.
- Court notes a sentence inconsistency between the abstract of judgment and the oral sentence for count three and orders modification of the abstract and sentencing structure.
- On appeal,Pitchess transcript review is denied; jury instruction on §69 resistance (second clause) upheld as general intent; §654 stay granted for one misdemeanor; retroactive §4019 amendments applied; sentence modifications ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pitchess revealed materials were properly reviewed. | Rasmussen argues for Pitchess disclosure to support his defense. | People contend Pitchess material properly sealed and not discoverable. | No error in reviewing sealed Pitchess transcript. |
| Whether resisting an executive officer under §69 requires specific or general intent. | Rasmussen argues §69 resistance is specific intent. | People argue second type (resistance) is general intent. | Second type is general intent; CALCRIM instructions proper. |
| Whether one misdemeanor sentence should be stayed under §654. | Asks for stay of count four. | Unstayed sentences may have been validly imposed. | Count four sentence must be stayed pending finality and completion of other counts. |
| Whether Rasmussen is entitled to retroactive §4019 credits under 2009 amendments. | Requests retroactive application for additional credits. | Amendments apply retroactively to eligible pre-sentence credits. | Retroactive §4019 amendments apply; total credits increased to 662 days. |
| Whether abstract of judgment properly reflected oral sentence for count three. | Abstract inaccurately reflected the sentence. | N/A | Abstract/oral sentence inconsistency requires modification of abstract. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974) (sealing of complaints against officers; Pitchess procedures)
- In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1997) (two modes of §69: deter by threats vs. resist by force; differing mental states)
- Hood, 1 Cal.3d 444 (Cal. 1969) (general vs. specific intent framework for determining intent in statute definitions)
- Lacefield v. People, 157 Cal.App.4th 249 (Cal. App. 4th 2007) (second type of §69 offense (resisting) is generally not a specific-intent crime)
- Gutierrez, 28 Cal.4th 1083 (Cal. 2002) (discusses §69 first clause (deterring) as potentially specific intent; second clause as general)
- Patino, 95 Cal.App.3d 11 (Cal. App. 1979) (early view that §69 first clause involves specific intent; context for separate clauses)
- Roberts, 131 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 (Cal. App. 1982) (distinguishes second clause of §69 as general intent; relevance to §148 in pari materia)
- Lopez v. People, 129 Cal.App.4th 1508 (Cal. App. 2005) (discusses distinctions between §69 second clause and §148 when analyzing elements)