People v. Watts
22 Cal. App. 5th 102
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Watts was convicted by a jury of murder and possession of a firearm by a felon; jury found a gang enhancement (§ 186.22(b)(1)(C)) true and found he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53). Court sentenced him to 80 years to life (including Three Strikes and firearm/serious-felony enhancements).
- Prosecution presented eyewitness ID, surveillance and cell‑tower data placing Watts at the scene, multiple fingerprints linking him to a vehicle, and gang‑expert testimony that Watts was a Bounty Hunters member and the killing benefitted the gang; defense presented no evidence at trial.
- Watts filed a pro se motion for a new trial arguing (among other things) the evidence was insufficient to support the gang enhancement and that counsel was ineffective for not calling a witness ("Little Chris") and for other omissions; the trial court denied the motion but repeatedly stated it would not reweigh the evidence.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard (treated the motion like a § 1118.1 sufficiency review rather than an independent reweighing under Penal Code § 1181, subd. (6)), vacated the denial as to the gang enhancement, and remanded for a limited rehearing on that issue.
- After legislative amendment (Senate Bill 620; § 12022.53(h)), the appellate court held the trial court must also exercise its new discretion to consider striking firearm enhancements and remanded for resentencing consideration and recalculation of custody credits.
Issues
| Issue | Watts' Argument | People/Trial Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for gang enhancement / new trial standard | Trial court must independently reweigh evidence under § 1181(6) and grant new trial if evidence insufficient | Trial court treated issue as whether there was enough evidence to send to jury (deferred to jury) | Court: Trial court applied wrong standard; remand for limited rehearing under § 1181(6) (judge as 13th juror) |
| Whether trial court properly refused to reweigh evidence | Watts argued court misunderstood and refused to perform independent review | Trial court said reweighing is for appeal or § 1118.1, not a new trial hearing | Court: Comments show refusal to reweigh; abuse of discretion requiring remand |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel raised in new trial motion | Watts asserted counsel erred (e.g., not calling Little Chris; failing objections) and that warranted new trial | Trial court: ineffective‑assistance claims are ordinarily for appeal/habeas and Watts failed to present affidavits/declarations or live testimony to prove deficiency and prejudice | Court: Trial court did not err in denying relief on this ground given Watts’ failure to present admissible supporting evidence; habeas is available |
| Post‑appeal change in law re firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53(h)) | Watts benefit: court should consider striking enhancements under new statute | People agreed remand appropriate; court must exercise discretion | Court: Amendment applies retroactively (In re Estrada); remand for trial court to decide whether to strike/dismiss firearm enhancements and recalc credits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Davis, 10 Cal.4th 463 (trial court must independently reweigh evidence on new trial motion under § 1181)
- Porter v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 125 (distinguishing § 1118.1 sufficiency review from § 1181 independent reweighing)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (legislative amendments reducing punishment apply retroactively to nonfinal cases)
- People v. Robarge, 41 Cal.2d 628 (trial court must independently evaluate evidence; failure requires rehearing)
- People v. Cornwell, 37 Cal.4th 50 (trial court may consider ineffective assistance in new trial motion when trial observation supplies basis)
- People v. Fosselman, 33 Cal.3d 572 (limits on appellate reversal for ineffective assistance; trial court well suited to assess in some new trial contexts)
- People v. Dickens, 130 Cal.App.4th 1245 (trial court’s duty to independently weigh evidence on new trial motion)
- Ryan v. Crown Castle NG Networks, Inc., 6 Cal.App.5th 775 (failure to exercise independent discretion on rehearing is error)