People v. Schaar CA5
F070279
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Defendant David Schaar pled no contest to Penal Code § 69 (resisting arrest) and admitted a prior conviction for Penal Code § 243(d) (battery causing serious bodily injury) but reserved the right to challenge whether the prior was a Three Strikes "strike."
- At sentencing the trial court reviewed police reports and the 2010 plea transcript and found the 2010 § 243(d) conviction was a strike, doubling the low term under § 667(e).
- Schaar moved to withdraw his plea, arguing he had not been advised in 2010 that the prior plea carried strike consequences; the trial court denied the motion.
- Schaar filed a Pitchess motion seeking the arresting officer’s personnel records; the trial court conducted an in camera review and found no responsive documents.
- On appeal the People conceded insufficient evidence supported treating the 2010 conviction as a strike; Schaar also asked for independent appellate review of the Pitchess materials.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the strike finding, remanded for resentencing (permitting retrial on the strike allegation), and independently reviewed the Pitchess materials, agreeing with the trial court that none were responsive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010 § 243(d) conviction qualified as a serious/violent felony (a Three Strikes "strike") | The § 243(d) conviction and plea transcript show a serious-bodily-injury battery, sufficient to treat it as a strike; absence of aiding/abetting language implies defendant personally inflicted injury | The record of conviction does not establish defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury; trial court improperly relied on police reports and other materials outside the record of conviction | Reversed: insufficient competent evidence in the record of conviction to support strike finding; police reports and inferences from silence are impermissible to prove the prior was a strike |
| Whether appellate court should independently review Pitchess materials produced in camera | People had no objection to independent review | Schaar requested independent review to confirm none of the personnel records were responsive | Court independently reviewed and agreed with trial court that no responsive personnel records existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (establishing procedure for discovery of peace officer personnel records)
- People v. Bueno, 143 Cal.App.4th 1503 (absence of aiding-and-abetting allegation cannot be used to infer defendant personally inflicted serious injury)
- People v. Trujillo, 40 Cal.4th 165 (court may look to the record of conviction, but no further, to determine nature of prior)
- People v. Scott, 85 Cal.App.4th 905 (evidence outside the record of conviction may not be used to prove a prior was a serious or violent felony)
- People v. Gonzales, 131 Cal.App.4th 767 (defining components of the record of conviction)
- Draeger v. Reed, 69 Cal.App.4th 1511 (police reports are not part of the record of conviction)
- People v. Jones, 15 Cal.4th 119 (police report accuracy not subject to judicial notice)
- Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (retrial of a prior-conviction allegation is not barred after reversal for insufficiency)
- People v. Barragan, 32 Cal.4th 236 (retrial permitted on reversed prior-conviction allegations)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (appellate court independently reviews Pitchess in camera materials)