People v. Saysanasy CA5
F081458
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Defendant Lee Louly Saysanasy shot and killed a man at a restaurant party; video captured the altercation.
- Jury convicted Saysanasy of second‑degree murder and found true a Penal Code §12022.53(d) enhancement (personal and intentional discharge causing death).
- He had a prior 1992 strike conviction (voluntary manslaughter with a firearm) and a prior serious felony; original aggregate sentence was 60 years to life (including a 25‑to‑life firearm enhancement).
- After Senate Bill No. 620 amended §12022.53(h) to permit courts to strike firearm enhancements, the matter was remanded for the trial court to consider striking the enhancement.
- At resentencing, Saysanasy moved to strike the §12022.53(d) enhancement (or alternatively his prior strike); the prosecutor opposed. The trial court denied both requests, emphasizing the facts of the offense, lack of remorse/flight, and the prior manslaughter with a firearm.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike the enhancement or the prior strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Saysanasy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to strike the §12022.53(d) firearm enhancement under §12022.53(h)/§1385 | Denial was proper because the court reasonably weighed aggravating facts (multiple close‑range shots, fleeing, lack of remorse) and defendant’s firearm‑related prior | Court should have struck the enhancement to preserve any realistic parole possibility and the court erred by referencing elderly‑parole eligibility | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; trial court permissibly relied on offense severity and criminal history |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike the prior strike (Romero motion) | Three‑strikes scheme presumes striking is inappropriate given defendant’s violent prior, parole violations, and continued criminality | Prior strike is remote and defendant’s age/conditions weigh in favor of striking to avoid an effectively parole‑ineligible sentence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; defendant remains within the spirit of three strikes given his record and current offense |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (2004) (standard of review and discretion under §1385; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Romero v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (trial court’s discretion to strike prior strike convictions under §1385 and factors to consider)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (1998) (analysis for Romero motions; consider nature of current and prior offenses and defendant’s background)
- People v. Woods, 19 Cal.App.5th 1080 (2018) (Senate Bill No. 620 applies retroactively to judgments not yet final)
- People v. Pearson, 38 Cal.App.5th 112 (2019) (trial court must consider sentencing factors when determining whether to strike firearm enhancements)
- People v. Jordan, 42 Cal.3d 308 (1986) (scope of trial court’s discretionary power and when appellate courts may disturb it)