People v. Saez
237 Cal. App. 4th 1177
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2007 Jose Saez attacked a woman with a homemade garrote; he was arrested with bloodstained clothing and the garrote, and DNA linked the victim to the items. He was charged with attempted murder and related enhancements (premeditation, personal infliction of great bodily injury, personal use of a deadly weapon).
- At preliminarily hearing magistrate found probable cause for premeditation and great bodily injury; Saez moved under Penal Code §995 to dismiss some allegations. A different judge (Judge Lee) granted the §995 motion as to the premeditation allegation, but a minute order erroneously stated the motion was denied and later informations realleged premeditation.
- A jury convicted Saez of attempted murder and found true the premeditation, great-bodily-injury, and deadly-weapon allegations; the court found Saez suffered two prior Wisconsin convictions (armed robbery; false imprisonment while armed) and treated both as serious-felony "strikes."
- Saez was sentenced to 39 years to life (including a 25-to-life term as a third-strike for premeditated attempted murder and enhancements for priors).
- On appeal the court: affirmed attempted murder conviction (but reversed the premeditation finding as improperly realleged after a §995 dismissal), affirmed great-bodily-injury and identity findings, reversed the strike determination for the Wisconsin false-imprisonment conviction under Descamps Sixth Amendment principles, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Saez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the premeditation allegation could be retried/realleged after a §995 dismissal by a different judge | Realleging and trying premeditation was a procedural error but harmless because evidence at trial supported premeditation | The §995 dismissal by Judge Lee was binding; reallegation and trial of premeditation was improper and required reversal of conviction | Premeditation finding reversed: a judge other than the one who granted §995 cannot revive an allegation dismissed by that judge; conviction for attempted murder stands but premeditation finding vacated |
| Sufficiency of evidence for great bodily injury enhancement (§12022.7) | Evidence of head injuries, lacerations, fractures, bleeding, two-day hospitalization supports great bodily injury | Argued evidence insufficient | Held: substantial evidence supports great-bodily-injury enhancement |
| Sufficiency of evidence for identity of prior Wisconsin convictions | Records (name Jose Antonio Saez, same birthdate, same Milwaukee street), booking ID cards, and clerk’s records establish identity beyond reasonable doubt | Argued records lacked fingerprint/photo and name is common; possible different persons | Held: trial court’s identity finding supported by substantial evidence (same full name, birthdate, and street) |
| Whether relying on Wisconsin record to classify false-imprisonment conviction as a California "strike" violated Sixth Amendment after Descamps | People argued the court may examine the “entire record of conviction” (McGee) to determine if prior conviction matches a California serious-felony category | Saez argued the record did not necessarily establish personal use of a firearm and Descamps prohibits judicial factfinding about non-elemental facts of prior pleas to increase sentence | Held: strike determination reversed as to false imprisonment. McGee permitted examining prior record, but Descamps and Apprendi principles prohibit judicial factfinding about disputed non-elemental facts (e.g., personal use of a firearm) that increase punishment beyond statutory maximum; remand for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (requires jury finding of any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases statutory maximum sentence)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (limits sentencing-court reliance to certain documents when determining the nature of a prior conviction)
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (sentencing courts may not make disputed factual findings about the basis of prior pleas when statute is indivisible; endorses elements-focused approach)
- People v. McGee, 38 Cal.4th 682 (Cal. S. Ct. holding permitting review of the entire record of conviction to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a strike under state law)
- People v. Letner & Tobin, 50 Cal.4th 99 (errors in denying §995 motions are reversible only if prejudicial; trial evidence may cure prelim-stage defects)
- People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (postconviction probation reports and after-the-fact statements are generally not part of the record of conviction for enhancement purposes)
- People v. Wilson, 219 Cal.App.4th 500 (app. dep't decision holding strike finding improper where court resolved disputed facts in prior record and applying Descamps principles)