91 Cal.App.5th 1176
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Around 1:00 a.m. on August 28, 2016, defendant Thomas Ryan Scott shot and killed Luis Quintanar during a confrontation in a church parking lot; Scott later gave statements asserting self-defense but testified he was not present at trial.
- In a jury trial (defended in propria persona), Scott was convicted of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192(a)), a personal firearm-use enhancement (§ 12022.5(a)), and unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29800(a)(1)); he admitted one strike prior and admitted other enhancements that were later dismissed.
- The admitted 2009 prior conviction was for unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851) and was treated as a strike because a gang enhancement (§ 186.22(b)) was found true at that time.
- Pretrial, Scott moved to compel disclosure of a confidential informant; the trial court held an in camera hearing with the detective, sealed the record, and denied disclosure, finding the informant not material or exculpatory.
- Scott challenged on appeal (1) denial of disclosure of the informant, (2) whether his 2009 conviction remains a strike in light of Assembly Bill No. 333’s amendments to § 186.22 (effective Jan. 1, 2022), and (3) an error in the abstract of judgment (the restitution fine suspension not reflected).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure of confidential informant | People: trial court properly balanced confidentiality and justice, conducted adequate in camera hearing, informant not material/exculpatory | Scott: court should have required sworn testimony from informant, allowed questioning, and disclosure | Court: no abuse of discretion; detective sworn, sufficient inquiry showed informant not a material/exculpatory witness; denial affirmed |
| Whether 2009 prior remains a strike after AB 333 (amending § 186.22) | People: strike status is fixed as of date of the prior conviction under § 1170.12/§ 667; Robles/ Rodriguez judicial changes are retrospective but statutory amendments do not alter a final prior | Scott: AB 333 is ameliorative and applies to convictions not final on effective date; his § 186.22-based prior is not a strike under the amended statute | Court: strike status is determined as of the date of the prior conviction; because the 2009 conviction was a strike when final, AB 333 does not vitiate it; admission of the strike was also a direct admission, so challenge forfeited |
| Abstract of judgment error (restitution fine) | People: concede abstract fails to show suspended restitution fine and agree correction is required | Scott: abstract should reflect suspended $10,000 restitution fine | Court: agree; directed clerk to amend abstract to show suspension and send certified amended abstract to CDCR |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Briceno, 34 Cal.4th 451 (defines when an offense constitutes a § 186.22 felony for strike purposes)
- People v. Renteria, 13 Cal.5th 951 (discusses AB 333 amendments to § 186.22 and narrowed gang definition)
- People v. Tran, 13 Cal.5th 1169 (ameliorative legislation applies to convictions not yet final on effective date)
- People v. Watts, 131 Cal.App.4th 589 (changed judicial interpretation post-conviction may render a prior inconclusive as a strike)
- People v. Robles, 23 Cal.4th 1106 (interpreted elements incorporated from § 186.22 affecting related statutes)
- People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (held that certain constructions of § 186.22 require multiple participants)
- People v. Anderson, 35 Cal.App.4th 587 (three-strikes statute fixes qualifying status as of date of prior conviction)
- People v. Millan, 20 Cal.App.5th 450 (example of ameliorative statutory amendment applied on appeal)
- People v. Lobaugh, 188 Cal.App.3d 780 (admission of a prior is ordinarily conclusive and forfeits challenge)
- People v. Hobbs, 7 Cal.4th 948 (informant material-witness analysis in confidential informant disclosure context)