People v. Sanders CA2/8
B271461
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 6, 2016Background
- In March 2007 a jury convicted Donald Sanders of two counts of attempted murder (with findings he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury) and two counts of assault with a firearm (with great bodily injury findings).
- In March 2008 the trial court sentenced Sanders to 64 years to life; this court affirmed the judgment but remanded to reduce a consecutive midterm on the second attempted murder to one-third the midterm.
- In May 2011 the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc amended sentence totaling 59 years 4 months to life reflecting the remand adjustment and firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53.
- In March 2016, while self-represented, Sanders moved for resentencing arguing section 12022.53(e) required the prosecution to plead and prove a gang enhancement (section 186.22) alongside the section 12022.53(d) 25‑to‑life enhancement.
- The trial court denied the motion; Sanders appealed and appellate counsel filed a Wende brief. Sanders filed a supplemental brief raising due process and ineffective-assistance arguments. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s order denying resentencing must state reasons | People/respondent: no specific argument; order denial is proper | Sanders: order lacked stated reasons, violating due process under Cal. Const. art. VI §14 and Lewis | Denial of reasons not error; §14 applies to appellate opinions, not trial orders; Lewis inapplicable |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing §12022.53(e) applies | People: appellate counsel adequately represented; merits lacking | Sanders: counsel should have argued §12022.53(e) requires pleading/proof of §186.22 for §12022.53(d) enhancement | Counsel not ineffective because Sanders’ statutory theory lacks merit — §12022.53(e) governs principals, not defendants who personally used a firearm |
| Whether §12022.53(d) enhancement in this case was improperly applied because it must be tethered to a substantive crime | People: the enhancement is properly tethered to attempted murder (an enumerated offense) | Sanders: enhancement invalid without gang enhancement pleading/ proof | Enhancement valid — tethered to attempted murder listed in §12022.53(a) |
| Whether independent review reveals any arguable appellate issues (Wende review) | People: appointed counsel fulfilled duty; no arguable issues | Sanders: raised supplemental claims (above) | Independent review finds no arguable issues; affirm judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanders, 189 Cal.App.4th 543 (Cal. Ct. App.) (prior appeal and remand reducing midterm)
- Lewis v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1232 (1999) (peremptory writ context; oral argument not required for limited writs)
- In re Harris, 5 Cal.4th 813 (1993) (standards for appellate ineffective-assistance review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (2006) (Wende independent-review principles)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (1979) (procedures for appointed counsel and appellate brief when no arguable issues)