People v. Sharpe
10 Cal. App. 5th 741
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In the pre-dawn hours defendant Joseph Sharpe and several men entered Jonah Smith’s fenced marijuana garden and cut down 11 plants; Smith confronted them, was knocked to the ground, and the men fled down a long driveway carrying items.
- During Smith’s pursuit, a masked man brandished a gun, causing Smith to withdraw; later, the suspects’ vehicle rammed Smith’s truck at a store, disabling it, shots were fired, and Smith found marijuana debris scattered down the driveway.
- Sharpe was charged with robbery (Pen. Code § 211) and a prior prison-term enhancement; a jury convicted him of robbery and the prior was found true.
- At sentencing the court imposed 5 years for robbery plus 1 year for the prior term and ordered $23,222.50 in restitution to Smith for property damage and related costs.
- On appeal Sharpe challenged (inter alia) sufficiency of evidence for robbery, prosecutorial misconduct in closing, denial of a section 1118.1 motion, denial of an untimely Faretta self-representation request, the restitution award, and cumulative error.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction but modified the restitution award, reducing it to $18,805.83 and directing amendment of the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Sharpe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery | Evidence (garden cutting, stacked pile, debris down driveway, items in hands while fleeing, force and gun) supports inference they were carrying marijuana when force/fear occurred | No evidence force or fear occurred during the taking or asportation; Smith didn’t see marijuana in hands | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence allowed jury to infer marijuana was being carried when force/fear occurred, supporting robbery conviction |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Prosecutor’s comments were within bounds and the court’s instructions correctly stated law; any arguable inaccuracy cured by instructions | Prosecutor misstated law by implying any force at any time could convert theft to robbery without tying force to an actual taking/asportation | No misconduct: instructions correctly stated elements; remarks not reasonably likely to mislead jury |
| Denial of Pen. Code §1118.1 motion (motion to dismiss at close of evidence) | Evidence sufficient to submit robbery to jury | Trial court should have granted dismissal for insufficient evidence | Denial affirmed for same reasons sufficiency claim failed |
| Denial of untimely Faretta self-representation motion | Trial court acted within discretion considering timing, quality of counsel, potential delay, and defendant’s attempts to intimidate witnesses | Denial was an abuse of discretion; motion was voluntary and based on disagreement with counsel | Denial affirmed: court permissibly considered untimeliness, competent counsel, possible delay, and risk of witness manipulation; any deficient rationale harmless given other valid reasons |
| Restitution award (double recovery and salvage value) | Restitution should make victim whole but not give a windfall; court has discretion to use fair market value or cost-of-repair method but not both | Trial court reasonably used insurance payout and repair costs; award of salvage value was proper as part of settlement math | Reversed in part: trial court erred by awarding both decrease in fair market value and repair costs and by including salvage value that produced a windfall. Restitution reduced to $18,805.83 |
| Cumulative error | N/A | Aggregation of alleged errors requires reversal | No cumulative error found after correcting restitution only |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 37 Cal.4th 733 (standard for sufficiency review)
- People v. Morales, 25 Cal.4th 34 (prosecutorial-misconduct standard re: jury instruction and comments)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self-representation; timing/discretion)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (purpose of restitution: restore economic status quo)
- People v. Chappelone, 183 Cal.App.4th 1159 (restitution cannot give victim a windfall)
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (procedure for substituting court-appointed counsel)