People v. Simmons
233 Cal. App. 4th 1458
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Malbrough and Simmons were charged in a 12-count Oakland home-invasion robbery case and convicted of numerous felonies after a jury trial; Malbrough received life with an additional term, Simmons life with a lengthy term.
- Initially, both pled no contest under a package plea; the court withdrew the package after Malbrough expressed concerns and misgivings about the deal.
- Simmons sought to withdraw but ultimately remained in the plea; Malbrough sought withdrawal, prompting the court to revert to trial, then later to re-evaluate the plea.
- The trial court ultimately granted Malbrough’s motion to withdraw the plea, citing concerns about voluntariness, and the proceedings proceeded toward trial, with Bayless severed from the case.
- On appeal, defendants challenge aggravated-kidnapping convictions for insufficiency and jury instruction issues, seek elimination of multiple theft fines, and urge a court trial on Malbrough’s prior-conviction allegations; the court remands on some issues but affirms the judgments otherwise.
- The court remands to strike all but one $10 theft fine per defendant and to hold a court trial on Malbrough’s prior-conviction allegations; the remainder of the judgments are affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of withdrawal of package plea | Malbrough withdrew under good cause; court erred in withdrawal. | Court had authority to withdraw and re-enter not guilty plea; no error. | Court properly withdrew approval; not reversible error. |
| Sufficiency of aggravated-kidnapping evidence | Movements were beyond incidental and increased harm, supporting asportation. | Movements were incidental to robbery; no increased risk. | Substantial evidence supports convictions; movements increased risk of harm. |
| Jury instruction on 'merely incidental' movement | CALCRIM 1203 and related instructions adequately defined not merely incidental movement. | Instructional mix created confusion; failed to capture proper standard. | Instructions sufficiently described not merely incidental movement; no error. |
| Remedy for multiple theft fines | Fines under §1202.5 could be stacked for multiple convictions. | Only a single $10 fine should apply per case. | Strike all but one §1202.5 fine per defendant. |
| Prior-conviction adjudication | Malbrough admitted a prior robbery conviction; court should adjudicate in court trial. | No court trial conducted; enhancements insufficiently tied to prior conviction. | Remand for a court trial on Malbrough’s prior-conviction allegations. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cruz, 12 Cal.3d 562 (1974) (good cause requires clear and convincing evidence)
- People v. Fairbank, 16 Cal.4th 1223 (1997) (buyer’s remorse alone not good cause)
- In re Ibarra, 34 Cal.3d 277 (1983) (coercion and voluntariness in pleas)
- People v. Sandoval, 140 Cal.App.4th 111 (2006) (special scrutiny in package plea bargains)
- People v. Webb, 186 Cal.App.3d 401 (1986) (estoppel in plea-bargain context)
- People v. Gifford, 53 Cal.App.4th 1333 (1997) (withdrawal of plea approvals under §1192.5)
- People v. Barragan, 32 Cal.4th 236 (2004) (retrial of strike allegations permissible)