46 Cal.App.5th 1159
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- On September 27, 2017, Sadel Wilkes followed a white Volvo after an interaction at a park; while the car was stopped at a freeway metering light he fired into the front passenger window, injuring the passenger and shooting at the driver. Wilkes was identified at the scene and in a photo ID.
- Witnesses placed Wilkes (nicknamed Nine-O) running after the car, obtaining a ride to catch up, exiting the vehicle, walking to the Volvo, and returning with a backpack after the shooting.
- A jury convicted Wilkes of attempted murder (willful, deliberate, and premeditated), two counts of assault with a firearm, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and felon-in-possession; multiple firearm enhancements were found true; prior convictions were admitted.
- The trial court sentenced Wilkes to an aggregate term of 59 years, 4 months to life. Wilkes appealed raising evidentiary, instructional, prosecutorial-misconduct, and sentencing claims, including an equal-protection challenge to section 3051(h) (youth parole ineligibility for Three Strikes offenders).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed convictions, rejected the equal protection challenge to section 3051(h), struck a section 667.5(b) prior prison-term enhancement under SB 136, awarded 56 days of presentence conduct credit, and denied other relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Wilkes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — intent to kill | Purposeful close-range shooting into occupied car supports specific intent to kill | No evidence Wilkes knew driver (Christopher) was in front seat or was aiming at him | Conviction affirmed; substantial evidence supports intent to kill |
| Sufficiency — premeditation / deliberation | Brought a gun, followed the car, approached and fired — supports Anderson factors | No planning, motive, or particular method to establish premeditation | Jury finding of willful, deliberate, premeditated attempted murder upheld |
| Heat-of-passion / provocation instruction & ineffective assistance | No sua sponte duty to give CALCRIM No. 522; any failure to request instruction was not prejudicial | Trial court should have instructed on provocation; counsel ineffective for not requesting it | No error; no sua sponte duty; ineffective-assistance claim fails for lack of prejudice |
| Prosecutor closing argument / ineffective assistance | Argument accurately explained deliberation may occur quickly; no objection was raised | Prosecutor trivialized element (improper); counsel ineffective for not objecting | Claim forfeited for failure to object; argument not reversible misconduct; no prejudice shown |
| SB 1393 — prior serious-felony enhancement | Court could exercise discretion to strike but here record shows court would still impose max | Remand to permit court to consider striking prior under SB 1393 | No remand: record shows trial court would have imposed same maximum sentence |
| SB 136 — section 667.5(b) prior prison-term enhancement | Applies retroactively; prior grand theft not a sexually violent offense | Strike the enhancement under SB 136 | Enhancement conceded and stricken; judgment modified accordingly |
| Equal protection — section 3051(h) ineligibility for Three Strikes youth offenders | Legislature may rationally exclude recidivist/Three Strikes youth offenders due to heightened recidivism risk | Differential treatment of similarly situated youth offenders violates equal protection | Equal protection challenge rejected; section 3051(h) constitutional as applied to Three Strikes offenders |
| Presentence credits & ability-to-pay (Dueñas) | Agreed Wilkes entitled to conduct credits; restitution/assessments imposed without ability-to-pay hearing were forfeited for lack of timely objection | Entitled to full conduct credits; ability-to-pay challenge preserved or Dueñas applies | Awarded 56 days conduct credit; Dueñas-based challenges forfeited; restitution fine/assessments upheld as forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Brooks, 3 Cal.5th 1 (framework for sufficiency review and use of Anderson factors)
- People v. Smith, 37 Cal.4th 733 (specific intent-to-kill inference from purposeful shooting)
- People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (three Anderson factors for premeditation/deliberation)
- People v. Romero, 44 Cal.4th 386 (planning inference from bringing a gun)
- People v. Edwards, 34 Cal.App.5th 183 (equal protection analysis for youth offender parole exclusions)
- People v. Cooper, 43 Cal.App.4th 815 (rational basis for distinguishing recidivists under Three Strikes)
- People v. McDaniels, 22 Cal.App.5th 420 (when remand is required to exercise discretion under SB 1393)
- People v. Trujillo, 60 Cal.4th 850 (forfeiture of challenge to probation fee where no timely objection)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (forfeiture rules and assessment of prosecutor argument)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (ability-to-pay hearing principles relied on in appellate discussion)