People v. Sawyers
B266897
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 26, 2017Background
- July 25, 2013: multiple shooters fired >20 rounds into a Compton house occupied by Nutty Block Crips members and family; Thomas Dunbar was killed; others (Mary, Linda, Brandon Frison) were shot at or struck by bullets.
- At least three firearms were used, including a .223-caliber rifle capable of piercing walls; numerous bullet impacts were found throughout the house and neighboring property.
- Sawyers, an admitted Spooktown/ATF gang member, made recorded inculpatory statements in an undercover ruse admitting he fired a .223 from the back seat of an Audi and boasted of “going lethal.”
- Jury convicted Sawyers of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted premeditated murder, and two counts of shooting at an inhabited dwelling; firearm and gang enhancements were found true.
- The information alleged two prior convictions (first‑degree burglary and receiving stolen property) and 667.5(b) prior prison‑term allegations, but did not expressly plead a Three Strikes (§§ 667/1170.12) allegation; Sawyers later admitted the priors and was sentenced under Three Strikes to an aggregate 75 years‑to‑life.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murders of Mary and Linda (kill‑zone theory) | Evidence of extensive spray of high‑powered, wall‑piercing gunfire, placement/number of shots, and Sawyers’s admissions support intent to kill everyone in the house | Only intended to kill Frison; other victims were not known to be present so convictions unsupported | Affirmed: evidence sufficient under kill‑zone/concurrent‑intent theory (attack method supported intent to kill occupants) |
| Sentencing under Three Strikes despite information not alleging a strike | The burglary was a serious/violent felony; first‑degree burglary is a strike; the record shows the court referred to a strike and defendant admitted priors, so Three Strikes sentencing was proper | Information did not plead §§ 667/1170.12 Three Strikes allegations or otherwise give notice; no written or oral amendment, and no implied consent to treat it as amended | Reversed as to sentence: Three Strikes sentencing vacated and remanded for resentencing because defendant lacked fair notice and informal amendment did not apply |
| Forfeiture of challenge to Three Strikes sentence | Failure to object at sentencing forfeits claim | People bear pleading burden; imposition of unpleaded enhancement is an unauthorized sentence not forfeited | Held for defendant: claim not forfeited; sentence unauthorized and must be vacated/remanded |
| Presentence conduct credits awarded to murder convict | Court awarded 53 days presentence conduct credit | People argued § 2933.2 bars such credits for murder convictions | Agreed with People: credits improperly awarded; trial court must omit presentence conduct credits on resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (discussion of kill‑zone/concurrent intent doctrine)
- People v. Vang, 87 Cal.App.4th 554 (applying kill‑zone theory to drive‑by shootings of occupied dwellings)
- People v. McCloud, 211 Cal.App.4th 788 (restrictive view of kill‑zone application; distinguished)
- People v. Mancebo, 27 Cal.4th 735 (due‑process/pleading notice limits on imposing alternative sentencing schemes)
- People v. Whitmer, 230 Cal.App.4th 906 (informal amendment doctrine and implied consent analysis)
- People v. Botello, 183 Cal.App.4th 1014 (pleading requirement for firearm enhancements under § 12022.53 and notice due‑process concerns)
- People v. Wilford, 12 Cal.App.5th 827 (insufficient notice when amended information referenced a different sentencing subdivision; analog on notice for alternative schemes)
- People v. Houston, 54 Cal.4th 1186 (forfeiture where court and parties gave explicit notice of the sentencing theory during trial)