People v. Sawyers
223 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Brian Alonzo Sawyers (defendant) was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted premeditated murder, and two counts of shooting at an occupied dwelling arising from a gang-related drive-by shooting that killed an 84‑year‑old man and endangered family members. Multiple firearms were used. Sawyers admitted two prior felony convictions (first‑degree burglary and receiving stolen property).
- The information charged prior prison‑term enhancements under Penal Code §667.5(b) and alleged the burglary as a serious or violent felony under §1170(h)(3), but it did not expressly allege Three Strikes (§§667, 1170.12) sentencing or cite those statutes.
- Mid‑trial the People amended to add §12022.53(d) and (e)(1) firearm allegations; no record shows a written or explicit oral amendment adding a Three Strikes allegation. The court referred to the priors as “one‑year prior allegations.”
- After conviction, Sawyers waived a jury for the bifurcated priors, admitted the priors, and the court sentenced him to doubled terms under the Three Strikes law (total 75 years to life). The People requested Three Strikes sentencing in a sentencing memorandum filed after the waiver.
- On appeal the published issue was whether Three Strikes sentencing was authorized given the pleading and notice; the court vacated the Three Strikes sentence and remanded for resentencing. In the unpublished portion the court rejected Sawyers’s insufficiency challenge to two attempted murder counts and agreed the trial court erred by awarding conduct credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Three Strikes sentencing was authorized when the information did not expressly allege a strike | The information alleged the prior burglary was a serious/violent felony and the court’s references and later conduct showed the burglary was treated as a strike; defendant forfeited any objection by failing to contest sentencing | The information gave no notice that the People sought sentencing under the Three Strikes statutes; defendant did not admit the prior was a strike with knowledge he faced Three Strikes punishment | The information did not give fair notice and no written/oral/informal amendment alleged a Three Strikes allegation; Three Strikes sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether the informal‑amendment doctrine or forfeiture permits treating the prior as a strike despite defective pleading | The People argued the record and conduct implied consent or that the defense forfeited the issue by not objecting | Sawyers argued he lacked meaningful notice and never consented to treating the prior as a Three Strikes allegation | The court held the informal‑amendment doctrine did not apply because Sawyers lacked reasonable notice; forfeiture did not cure the pleading defect |
| Sufficiency of evidence for two attempted murder counts (unpublished) | The People contended evidence supported convictions (gang, eyewitness, inculpatory statements) | Sawyers argued evidence insufficient for two attempted murder convictions | Court rejected Sawyers’s insufficiency claim in the unpublished portion and affirmed those convictions |
| Whether custody/conduct credits were properly awarded | People argued trial court erred in awarding presentence conduct credits inconsistent with law | Sawyers sought credits or correction | Court agreed with People that awarding conduct credits was error (noted in opinion) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mancebo, 27 Cal.4th 735 (reasoning that sentencing under an alternative scheme requires pleading and notice; unpled substitution at sentencing violates due process)
- People v. Houston, 54 Cal.4th 1186 (forfeiture may apply where defendant had explicit notice of enhanced punishment during trial proceedings)
- People v. Whitmer, 230 Cal.App.4th 906 (discussing informal amendment doctrine and adequacy of accusatory pleading)
- People v. Sandoval, 140 Cal.App.4th 111 (permitting amendment of pleadings and limits of informal amendment where notice exists)
- People v. Botello, 183 Cal.App.4th 1014 (enhancement statutes must be pleaded; imposing unpled firearm enhancement violates notice requirements)
- People v. Wilford, 12 Cal.App.5th 827 (information that alleges factual predicates but omits the statutory alternative sentencing provision does not give notice of increased sentencing exposure)
- People v. Arias, 182 Cal.App.4th 1009 (failure to plead elements that trigger an enhanced sentencing provision renders the sentence improper)