People v. Valenzuela, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 416

In 2007 and 2010 two rival gang members (Joe Alvarado and Jimmy Jimenez) were killed; Valenzuela admitted both shootings to a police informant and was tried on two counts of first‑degree murder.
At verdict, the clerk read verdicts finding Valenzuela guilty of both murders and true special allegations (firearm and gang enhancements; special‑circumstance of multiple murders).
After reading, the trial court asked collectively and then polled jurors individually; each juror confirmed the verdicts.
The appellate record, however, contained two signed verdict forms for the Jimenez count: one guilty (the form read in court) and one not guilty.
Valenzuela was sentenced to two concurrent life‑without‑parole terms plus 25‑to‑life firearm enhancements; he appealed claiming (1) the Jimenez verdict was unintelligible due to conflicting forms and (2) he should benefit from later statutory amendment permitting courts to strike firearm enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Jimenez verdict is unintelligible because the record contains both guilty and not‑guilty signed forms	Valenzuela: Two signed, conflicting forms make the verdict unintelligible and preclude judgment	People: The jurors’ oral verdicts (and polling) control; reading of guilty verdict and juror confirmations make verdict intelligible	Court: Verdict intelligible—oral verdict and individual poll are controlling; affirm conviction
Whether remand is required under amended Penal Code § 12022.53 (SB 620) to allow the trial court to consider striking firearm enhancements	Valenzuela: Amendment gives sentencing courts discretion; remand required so court can consider striking enhancements	People: Conceded remand is appropriate	Court: Remand required so trial court may exercise its new § 12022.53(h) discretion; enhancements vacated for resentencing
Clerical assessment/abstract errors	Valenzuela: Abstract reflects one assessment per case but court imposed assessments per count; request correction	People: Agreed correction needed	Court: Ordered correction of abstract on remand

People v. Carbajal, 56 Cal.4th 521 (discusses statutory procedures for receiving jury verdicts)
People v. Traugott, 184 Cal.App.4th 492 (jurors’ oral declaration is the true return of the verdict)
People v. Brown, 247 Cal.App.4th 211 (conflicting signed guilty and not‑guilty forms can render verdict unrecordable where court disregards a returned form)
People v. Thornton, 155 Cal.App.3d 845 (when jurors orally acknowledge only one of conflicting verdicts, that acknowledged verdict controls)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (legislative reduction of punishment presumed intended to apply retroactively)
People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (Estrada principles extend to amendments granting sentencing discretion)
People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (abstract of judgment must reflect oral pronouncement; appellate courts may order correction)