C093431A
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 12, 2025Background
- Over 15 years Roy Charles Waller burglarized and sexually assaulted nine women, binding and silencing them, demanding money, and repeatedly raping or otherwise sexually assaulting victims; DNA linked Waller to the crimes in 2018.
- A jury convicted Waller on 46 counts including multiple counts of forcible rape, forcible sexual penetration, oral copulation, sodomy, and numerous aggravated kidnapping counts for extortion and rape; many sentencing enhancements were found true.
- Trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 897 years to life and various fines/fees.
- On appeal Waller challenged sufficiency of evidence for several kidnapping-for-extortion counts and related kidnapping enhancements, fines/fees, and sought resentencing under Senate Bill No. 567.
- The panel reduced one count (count five relating to T. Doe) to felony false imprisonment and initially declined resentencing under SB 567; the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred for reconsideration in light of People v. Lynch (2024).
- On transfer the court concluded SB 567/Lynch required vacating the sentence and remanding for full resentencing because the trial court had relied on multiple vague aggravating factors not found by a jury; otherwise the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping-for-extortion (general, several victims) | People: substantial evidence shows victims consented under duress (gave ATM cards/PINs or indicated money location); those intangibles (PINs) are property for extortion purposes. | Waller: where property was taken without true consent (or PINs were worthless), the extortion element is lacking and convictions should be reversed. | Affirmed for N., R., K., Y. Doe: jury could find coerced consent and intent to extort; PINs/ATM cards qualify as property; convictions stand. |
| Sufficiency as to T. Doe (count five) | People conceded insufficiency for kidnapping-for-extortion as there was no evidence T. Doe consented to surrender property. | Waller sought reduction and requested resentencing implications addressed on remand. | Count five reduced to felony false imprisonment; judgment modified accordingly. |
| Sentencing under Senate Bill 567 / Sixth Amendment (Lynch) | People: any SB 567 error was harmless; trial court would have imposed same sentence. | Waller: trial court relied on several aggravating factors not admitted or found by jury; under SB 567/Lynch the error is prejudicial and requires remand for resentencing. | Remand for full resentencing. Two aggravating factors were jury-found (weapon use; tying/binding), but several other subjective aggravators the court used were not jury-found — prejudice could not be dismissed beyond a reasonable doubt under Lynch. |
| Fines, fees, penalty assessments and ability-to-pay challenges | People initially argued some assessments were required; court previously adjusted or struck some fees. | Waller argued due process and ability-to-pay analyses required hearings; sought relief on specific fees. | Moot on remand: because sentence vacated and resentencing ordered, these claims await presentation at resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lynch, 16 Cal.5th 730 (Cal. 2024) (holding that reliance on unproven aggravating facts to impose upper term sentences violates the Sixth Amendment and prescribing Chapman harmlessness review plus Gutierrez remand inquiry)
- People v. Kozlowski, 96 Cal.App.4th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (PINs and other intangibles may constitute "property" for extortion purposes)
- People v. Peck, 43 Cal.App. 638 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919) (extortion treats coerced surrender as consent even where protest exists)
- People v. Anderson, 97 Cal.App.3d 419 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (kidnapping for ransom/extortion is complete when done with the specific purpose, even if the purpose is not accomplished)
- People v. Kwok, 63 Cal.App.4th 1236 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (extortion and related property concepts can include impairment of exclusive possession or access)