People v. Torres CA5
F079097
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2021Background
- Defendant Aaron Matthew Torres faced consolidated prosecutions in four Merced County cases (A–D) for burglary, assault, weapons offenses, and probation violations; he was convicted of burglary after a jury trial in case A and admitted a prior serious/violent felony (a strike) and prior prison term allegations.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed an aggregate determinate term of 16 years 4 months (including two 1-year prior prison-term enhancements under former Penal Code § 667.5(b)); consecutive subordinate terms from other cases were executed.
- During the bifurcated prior-conviction phase in case A counsel waived a jury on priors, the court took a court trial waiver and the defendant admitted the prior strike; the court did not expressly advise him of the penal consequences of that admission.
- Defendant appealed, raising: challenge to the waiver/admission process (jury and court-trial waivers and advisements), a Dueñas challenge to fines/assessments (ability-to-pay), and a claim that Senate Bill No. 136 precluded the two § 667.5(b) enhancements.
- The People conceded SB 136 relief; the Court of Appeal held the jury-waiver challenge forfeited, found the court-trial waiver and admission knowing under the totality of the circumstances (but the lack of admonition on penal consequences was forfeited), rejected relief on Dueñas as forfeited, and ordered the two § 667.5(b) 1-year enhancements stricken, reducing the aggregate sentence to 14 years 4 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory right to a jury trial on prior-conviction allegations was validly waived | People: waiver by counsel in open court and defendant's agreement was effective; no contemporaneous objection | Torres: court failed to obtain his personal waiver of the statutory jury right | Waiver forfeited on appeal—defense counsel expressly waived and defendant agreed; no objection, so claim precluded |
| Whether the waiver of a court trial and admission to the prior strike were knowing and voluntary (advisement of constitutional rights) | People: record shows advisement and context (recent guilty plea to strike, trial experience) supports knowing/voluntary waiver | Torres: court failed to personally solicit waivers of rights and counsel misled him | Court found waiver and admission knowing/voluntary under totality of circumstances; no reversible error |
| Whether the court erred by failing to advise of penal consequences of admitting the prior conviction | People: concede failure to advise but argue harmless and forfeited without trial-court objection | Torres: lack of advisement renders admission defective and requires reversal/remand | Error to omit penal-consequences advisement was forfeited by failure to object; record shows defendant was aware so no reversible error |
| Whether fines/assessments were imposed without an ability-to-pay determination under People v. Dueñas | People: sentencing occurred after Dueñas but defendant did not object; forfeited | Torres: Dueñas requires ability-to-pay finding and relief despite lack of objection | Claim forfeited; appellate court declined to excuse forfeiture; fines/assessments affirmed |
| Whether Senate Bill No. 136 requires striking the two prior 1-year § 667.5(b) enhancements | People: concede SB 136 is retroactive and applies | Torres: enhancements invalid under amended § 667.5(b) | SB 136 applies retroactively; two 1-year enhancements stricken, aggregate term reduced to 14 years 4 months |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cross, 61 Cal.4th 164 (advisement and personal waiver of constitutional rights required for pleas/admissions; totality-of-circumstances review)
- People v. French, 43 Cal.4th 36 (distinction between constitutional jury rights and statutory jury rights; statutory jury rights may be waived by counsel)
- People v. Grimes, 1 Cal.5th 698 (forfeiture of appellate challenge where defendant failed to object to statutory jury-waiver)
- People v. Gallardo, 4 Cal.5th 120 (statutory right to jury trial on the fact of a prior conviction explained)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (constitutional requirement that guilty pleas be knowing and voluntary)
- In re Yurko, 10 Cal.3d 857 (admissions to priors that increase punishment require advisement)
- People v. Jones, 178 Cal.App.4th 853 (failure to object to lack of advisement of penal consequences forfeits that claim)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (defendant must raise ability-to-pay objection at sentencing; appellate courts generally will not treat fines as unauthorized if no objection)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (court of appeal decision recognizing need for ability-to-pay determination before imposing certain fines/fees)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (ameliorative statutory changes apply retroactively)