People v. Simms
233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 618
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- In 2014 Jeremy Simms entered a tire store on Jan. 21–22; store owner Jesus Vega testified about surveillance showing Simms taking money and about cash missing from the drawer. Vega's testimony about amounts was inconsistent.
- Simms pleaded no contest to offenses including grand theft from the person (amended from robbery) and two counts of second-degree burglary as part of plea bargains and received a lengthy prison term.
- After Proposition 47 (Pen. Code §1170.18) passed, Simms filed a petition to recall and resentence seeking misdemeanor reductions; the petition prompted evidentiary eligibility hearings the prosecutor requested.
- Two contested eligibility hearings were held in 2016 while Simms was not present; the trial court granted relief as to one burglary and another unrelated count, but denied reduction for one burglary and the grand theft count because it found the stolen amounts exceeded $950.
- Simms appealed, arguing the court misread Vega’s testimony on amounts, he was denied his right to be present at the contested eligibility hearings, and counsel was ineffective.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s factual determination as supported by substantial evidence but held Simms was denied his right to be present at contested §1170.18 eligibility proceedings; it vacated the ineligibility determination and remanded for a new hearing at which Simms must be allowed to appear.
Issues
| Issue | Simms's Argument | People/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court misread Vega’s testimony about how much was stolen on Jan. 21 and 22 | Vega’s testimony, taken in context, did not support finding >$950 taken on each day; total was at most ~$1,500 for both days combined | Vega testified as to $1,500 for each day; ambiguity could have been clarified by Simms at hearing | Court: substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual finding; appellate court will not reweigh equivocal testimony |
| Whether Simms had a right to be present at contested §1170.18 eligibility hearings | He did; §1170.18 eligibility hearings that resolve disputed factual issues are critical stages and require presence unless valid waiver | If proceeding is purely legal or uncontested, defendant need not be present; prior cases allowed waiver in uncontested settings | Court: presence is required at contested eligibility hearings; Simms did not validly waive; his absence violated constitutional/statutory rights |
| Whether Simms waived his right to be present by counsel’s limited waiver language in petition | Waiver did not apply because it was limited to uncontested hearings and only if court would grant relief | People rely on cases where waiver was broad or defendant forfeited the claim on appeal | Held: waiver was not valid for contested hearings; conditions for waiver were unmet |
| Prejudice standard for deprivation of right to be present | Simms argued his presence could have affected outcome because he could clarify facts | People argued any ambiguity was Simms’s burden to clarify and that absence was harmless | Court: violation is of federal constitutional dimension; harmlessness must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the court could not conclude the deprivation was harmless; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Page v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 1175 (describing petitioner’s burden at §1170.18 screening)
- Romanowski v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 903 (eligibility can sometimes be decided from record of conviction)
- Fedalizo v. Superior Court, 246 Cal.App.4th 98 (distinguishing uncontested legal eligibility determinations where waiver was broad)
- People v. Hall, 247 Cal.App.4th 1255 (eligibility under §1170.18 is a factual finding when contested)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (no Sixth Amendment jury right at resentencing-type proceedings)