THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRANDON EDWARD LEWIS, Defendant and Appellant.
E076449
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 3/2/23
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*¹ (Super. Ct. No. FSB18002088)
See Concurring Opinion
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*1
OPINION
Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Brandon Lewis was sentenced to over 73 years in prison after a jury convicted him of various offenses associated with his pimping three victims who were minors. Defendant contends his Sixth Amendment right to confront an accuser was violated because a computer monitor blocked his view of her face when she testified. We disagree. Defendant also contends, the People concede, and we agree that a portion of his sentence was unauthorized. We therefore strike that portion of his sentence. Finally, defendant argues the case must be remanded for resentencing in light of recently enacted legislation. We agree, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.W. met defendant in Las Vegas when she was 17 years old. She was homeless at the time and defendant offered her a place to stay so long as she helped him make money. After living with defendant for about two weeks, A.W. began prostituting herself for defendant. A.W. eventually moved in with defendant‘s girlfriend, T.W., who was also one of defendant‘s “girls.”
During a “date,” a customer began choking T.W., so A.W. physically assaulted him. The customer reported T.W., A.W., and defendant to the police, stating that they held him against his will. The three of them fled Las Vegas for San Bernardino, where A.W. and T.W. continued prostituting themselves for defendant.
In the ensuing months, defendant became increasingly violent toward A.W. and T.W. He also became increasing controlling of A.W. If A.W. did not do as she was told, defendant used or threatened to use violence. On several occasions, defendant threatened and hit A.W. with a gun. He repeatedly beat both A.W. and T.W. in front of one another. He beat A.W. so severely on one occasion that she had to go to the hospital, where defendant instructed her to lie about what happened. Not long afterwards, defendant again beat A.W. so badly that she vomited and had to go to the hospital. She told the police at
In April 2018, defendant unexpectedly showed up where A.W. was eating and told her to get in his car. Once she was inside the car, defendant hit her and drove off. Defendant drove around for over 90 minutes and refused to let A.W. get out of the car. During that time, defendant poured alcohol on her, punched her in the face at least 15 times, hit her in the face with his gun, told her she was “just a slave,” and threatened to shoot and kill her.
Defendant eventually stopped in a dark area near a ditch and told A.W. to get out. He told A.W. he was going to shoot her and leave her in the ditch, while kicking her repeatedly as she lay on the ground. After he ordered her back in the car, he told her he and his friends were going to gang rape her. While they were stopped at a red light, A.W. jumped out of the car and ran and hid behind a house. The next day, A.W. reported defendant‘s abuse to law enforcement while at the hospital. A.W. moved back in with defendant, but eventually left and returned to Las Vegas.
Jane Doe moved from San Bernardino into defendant‘s Las Vegas apartment when she was 16 years old, thinking that they were boyfriend and girlfriend. Within a few days, however, she realized defendant was planning on pimping her out as a prostitute.
About a year later, Jane Doe began prostituting herself for defendant in San Bernardino. Jane Doe ended up working for defendant every day for two or three years. As with A.W., defendant threatened Jane Doe with violence if she did not do what she was told.
Defendant was arrested and charged with various pimping-related offenses against T.W., A.W., and Jane Doe. A jury convicted him of human trafficking of A.W. to commit another crime (
The jury also found true allegations that defendant caused great bodily injury to A.W. in the commission of count 1 (
III. DISCUSSION
A. Sixth Amendment
Defendant argues his convictions on counts 1 through 7 must be reversed because he could not see A.W.‘s face while she testified, which he claims violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront an accuser. We disagree.3
1. Background
Shortly after A.W. took the stand to testify on the first day of trial, defense counsel asked for a sidebar. During the sidebar, defense counsel told the trial court, “I can‘t see her [A.W.] at all and I‘m not sure exactly whether I move or what.” The court told defense counsel, “you can move over so you can see her.” “We can move him over a little further and you can move over a little bit . . . to the left. I‘m not gonna put her in a position where she gets stared down. I‘m gonna keep an eye on people in the audience. But I think he needs to at least be able to see her.” Defense counsel and the court then briefly discussed counsel‘s concern that there were police officers “with their vests on” in
the courtroom. The court explained that he could see everyone in the courtroom and that everyone had behaved appropriately.
Defense counsel replied, “And if you can just say something. I‘ll push my client over so – just so I can see her.” The trial court then asked a courtroom employee to ask A.W. to “slide over a couple of inches” so that defense counsel “can see her.” The bailiff explained, “I think I can just move this monitor here,” to which the court said, “[Defense counsel] can‘t see. I want [defense counsel] to be able to see.” Defense counsel thanked the court and the trial proceeded with A.W. testifying for the rest of the day without any objection about defendant or his counsel not being able to see A.W.
The next day of trial began with A.W. testifying. Before she started testifying, however, defense counsel objected that he could not see her when she previously testified. Counsel explained: “[A.W.] sort of sat behind a screen that is up on the witness stand. And it was I assume it was done so that she wouldn‘t have to look at my client or see my client. And I approached a couple times unfortunately in front of the jury. But I did approach a couple times just to try to address it because I couldn‘t see her on several occasions. [¶] I would ask that we take the computer down so that my client can see her and she can see my client. I do believe under the Sixth Amendment he has a right to see her. I would certainly ask to see her. I would note for the record that we had a couple sessions on Tuesday I believe. And I didn‘t see her. So I physically got up and sat in the District Attorney‘s seat for several portions of that witness’ testimony sitting in between Detective Hernandez and the jury just so that I could see her. [¶] I don‘t believe that
there have been any allegations of threats that -- I think the one issue on the bus that we had had to do with a different witness which is [redacted] I believe. And so that would be the request, that we remove that and that both my client and myself be able to see her.”
The trial court ruled as follows: “So it is the Court‘s ruling that counsel will be able to see her. We will fix the screen so counsel can see her from where you are. I don‘t necessarily -- for the witness’ comfort, given the nature of the offenses alleged, given the nature of the defendant‘s demeanor, her ability to testify and provide information and provide candid information the Court thinks was helped by her not looking directly at the defendant. There are many situations in which witnesses can be screened off entirely or testify via remote television. The defendant‘s right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is for counsel. So if counsel can see her, she does not have to look at the defendant given what the Court has seen as far as her testimony, how she started off speaking very softly and hesitantly. And once she realized that -- once she got more comfortable, she became firmer in her testimony. We were better able to hear her. [¶] So I think I am going to just keep it the same way for now because I think it is important that we all hear what she has to say. So we will make sure that counsel can see her. And that will be the Court‘s ruling.” A.W. then testified.
2. Forfeiture
The Confrontation Clause of the
“guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact.” (Coy v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012, 1016.) This guarantee, however, is not absolute and may yield to important policy concerns so long as the witness‘s reliability remains assured. (See People v. Arredondo (2019) 8 Cal.5th 694, 700-701, citing Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836, 840 (Craig).) A defendant may also forfeit the constitutional right to confront a witness by failing to object. (People v. Arredondo, supra, at p. 710 [“We have applied this rule numerous times to find forfeiture of a constitutional right of confrontation claim.“].)
Although defense counsel stated that he could not see A.W.‘s face and objected on that basis before A.W. began testifying on the first day of trial, defense counsel never objected during the first day of A.W.‘s testimony on the ground that defendant could not see A.W.‘s face. It was not until the beginning of A.W.‘s second day of testifying that defense counsel objected on the ground that defendant could not see A.W.‘s face. By failing to object until the second day of A.W.‘s testimony, defendant forfeited his objection that his inability to see A.W.‘s face while she testified on the first day of trial violated the Confrontation Clause.
Defendant claims his failure to object should be excused because any objection would have been futile given that the trial court overruled his objection before A.W. testified on the second day of trial. We disagree. Our Supreme Court has “never expanded the futility exception to encompass a situation where, as here, the defendant made a belated objection after forgoing multiple earlier opportunities to object.” (People
v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 336.) Like that court, “we decline to do so here.” (Ibid.)
Regardless, we cannot determine on this record whether an objection before A.W. began testifying on the first day of trial would have been futile. The trial court overruled defendant‘s objection before she began testifying on the second day of trial in part because of what the court observed during A.W.‘s testimony on the first day of trial. According to the trial court, A.W. “started off speaking very softly and hesitantly,” but “became firmer in her testimony” as she grew “more comfortable” on the stand. In the court‘s view, this was because A.W. realized she did not have to look at defendant as she testified. It is thus unclear how the trial court would have ruled on defendant‘s Confrontation Clause challenge had he objected when A.W. first began testifying on the first day of trial.
Defendant alternatively argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on the first day of A.W.‘s testimony. We reject the ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claim.
To prevail on an IAC claim, the defendant must show that (1) counsel‘s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel‘s deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‘s failings, the result would have been more favorable to the defendant. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694;
accord, People v. Johnson (2015) 60 Cal.4th 966, 979-980; see People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1148.)
“[R]arely will an appellate record establish ineffective assistance of counsel.” (People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 122.) If the record sheds no light on counsel‘s actions, the claim must be rejected unless no satisfactory explanation exists or counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266.) We will not find ineffective assistance of counsel “unless there could be no conceivable reasonable for counsel‘s acts or omissions.” (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 926.)
We can think of several conceivable reasons why defense counsel may not have objected that defendant could not see A.W.‘s when she testified. For one, defendant and defense counsel may not have been initially concerned that defendant could not see A.W. so long as defense counsel could see her. It is conceivable that defendant decided that he wanted to be able to see A.W. after she testified for a day. Defense counsel also may have thought it was in defendant‘s best interest that he not look at A.W. because he may have done so in an intimidating manner. As the trial court noted, the court would not “put [A.W.] in a position where she gets stared down” and overruled defense counsel‘s objection to the computer monitor covering her face in part because of “defendant‘s demeanor.” Because defense counsel may have reasonably decided not to object that defendant could not see A.W.‘s face on the first day of trial, we reject defendant‘s IAC claim.
3. A.W.‘s First Day of Testimony
A.W.‘s testimony on the first day of trial was sufficient for the jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on counts 1 through 7. A.W. testified that defendant trafficked her from Las Vegas to San Bernardino in order to pimp her. She explained that defendant repeatedly threatened her, used violence, assaulted her with his gun, and detained her against her will, all to coerce her into prostituting herself for him. A.W. also testified that T.W. prostituted herself and gave her earnings to defendant.
A.W.‘s testimony on the first day of trial thus allowed the jury to find defendant guilty of trafficking A.W. to commit another crime (prostitution) (
B. Sentence Imposed on Count 9
Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the trial court erroneously imposed a 16-year term on count 9, pandering by procuring for prostitution a minor over 16 years old. (
The trial court imposed the 16-year term by imposing an upper term of eight years for count 9, doubled for defendant‘s strike prior. The upper term for the offense, however, is six years. (
C. Senate Bill No. 567
The trial court imposed upper term sentences on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. The court also imposed the upper term on the firearm enhancements in connection with counts 1, 5, and 6, and imposed the upper term on the great-bodily-injury enhancement in connection with count 1. Defendant contends the matter must be remanded for resentencing under recently enacted legislation so that the trial court can decide whether to impose these upper terms. We agree.
The court explained that it intended to impose the maximum term possible given the nature of defendant‘s offenses, the number of victims, and the length of time that he abused them. The court found that there were no mitigating factors, while there were three aggravating factors: (1) the victims were “particularly vulnerable,” (2) the manner defendant carried out the offenses indicated “criminal sophistication and professionalism,” and (3) he engaged in violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to society. (
“While this appeal was pending, Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1170, subdivision (b), making the middle term of imprisonment the presumptive sentence. (
Courts are split on how to assess harmlessness in these circumstances. (See Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 497, fn. 11.) In Flores, Division Three of the First District held that remand for resentencing under amended section 1170, subdivision (b)
was unnecessary because any error in the trial court‘s imposing an upper term (instead of the presumptive middle term required by Senate Bill No. 567) was harmless. (Flores, supra, at p. 500.) The Flores court held reviewing courts may affirm an upper term, even if the defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 567, so long as a reasonable jury would have found true “‘at least a single aggravating circumstance‘” justifying an upper term true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Ibid., quoting People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 839 (Sandoval).) The Flores court affirmed the defendant‘s upper term because a reasonable jury would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances that he had “numerous convictions” and committed the underlying offense while on probation. (Id. at p. 501.)
Our colleagues in Division One recently disagreed with Flores. (Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 467, fn. 11.) The Lopez court held that assessing harmlessness in the context of retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 567 requires a two-step analysis. (Ibid.) The first question we ask is whether we “can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt all of the aggravating factors on which the trial court relied in exercising its discretion to select the upper term.” (Ibid.) The Lopez court reasoned that section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) “requires that every factor on which a court intends to rely in imposing an upper term, with the
exception of factors related to a
If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then the trial court‘s “reliance on factors not found true by a jury in selecting the upper term” was harmless. (Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 467, fn. 11.) But if the answer to that question is “no,” then the reviewing court must ask if it is reasonably probable that the trial court still would have imposed the upper term “if it had recognized that it could permissibly rely on only a single one of the aggravating factors, a few of the aggravating factors, or none of the aggravating factors, rather than all of the factors on which it previously relied.” (Ibid.) If it is not reasonably probable that the trial court would have imposed an upper term, then the reviewing court must remand the case for resentencing under amended section 1170, subdivision (b). (Ibid.)
In fashioning its test for harmlessness, the Flores court relied entirely on our Supreme Court‘s opinion in Sandoval. (See Flores, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 467.) But Sandoval was based on former section 1170, subdivision (b)‘s language mandating
sentencing courts to impose the middle term “unless there are circumstances in aggravation.” Sandoval held that a sentencing court‘s finding of aggravating circumstances justifying an upper term was harmless if a jury would have found a single aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 839.)
But, as amended by Senate Bill No. 567, section 1170, subdivision (b) now provides that the sentencing court may impose an upper term “only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term.” (
sentencing court to impose an upper term if the jury would have found at least one aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt.
But under amended section 1170, subdivision (b), the sentencing court may impose the upper term only if all of the circumstances, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances, “justify the imposition” of that term. A single aggravating circumstance thus may be insufficient for a sentencing court to conclude that the upper term is justified under amended section 1170, subdivision (b). We therefore respectfully disagree with Flores.5 (See People v. Wandrey (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 962, 982 (Wandrey) [disagreeing with Flores and following Lopez]; Zabelle, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1113-1114 [agreeing with Lopez but “fram[ing] the issue somewhat differently” while noting “[b]oth our approach and the Lopez court‘s approach are the same in terms of outcomes“]; People v. Dunn (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 394 (Dunn) [disagreeing with Flores], review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S275655.)
Wandrey, citing Lopez, stated the appropriate test slightly differently. (Wandrey, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 982.) The reviewing court asks whether it was “certain the jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances relied on by the court and whether the trial court would have exercised its discretion in the same way if it had been aware of the statutory presumption in favor of the middle term.” (Ibid.)
In Zabelle, the Third District explained it “agree[d] in principle” with Lopez but had a “very minor” “quibble” with its test: “[S]imilar to Lopez, we also apply a two-step process when evaluating for prejudice in these circumstances, with the first step evaluating for Chapman error6 . . . and the second step evaluating for Watson7 error. But unlike the Lopez court, we find a
The Fifth District agreed with Lopez‘s two-step analysis, but disagreed on the appropriate standard of review at the first step. (Dunn, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 408.) The court was “unconvinced that the Chapman standard of harmless error—applicable to errors implicating federal constitutional rights—must be applied to all aggravating circumstances in the Lopez court‘s first step.” (Ibid.) The court noted that only one aggravating circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under Sandoval and that Lopez relied on only section 1170, subdivision (b) as authority for its holding that “Chapman applies to every factor.” (Ibid.)
Dunn thus found that ”Flores sets too low a standard for harmlessness and Lopez too high” and thus adopted “a version of the standard articulated in Lopez, modified to
incorporate Watson in the first step.” (Dunn, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 409.) Dunn articulated the appropriate test as follows: “The reviewing court determines (1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt whether the jury would have found one aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt and (1)(b) whether there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have found any remaining aggravating circumstance(s) true beyond a reasonable doubt. If all aggravating circumstances relied upon by the trial court would have been proved to the respective standards, any error was harmless. If not, the reviewing court moves to the second step of Lopez, (2) whether there is a reasonable probability that the trial court would have imposed a sentence other than the upper term in light of the aggravating circumstances provable from the record as determined in the prior steps. If the answer is no, the error was harmless. If the answer is yes, the reviewing court vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing consistent with section 1170, subdivision (b).” (Dunn, supra, at pp. 409-410, fn. omitted.)
In our view, the problem with these cases is that they do not properly account for our Supreme Court‘s decision in People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1358, 1382 (Gutierrez), a case defendant‘s counsel relied on heavily at oral argument. Although Lopez cited and purportedly applied Gutierrez, we conclude below that it did not do so properly. (See Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 467.) The other cases did not cite Gutierrez.
In Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460 (Miller), the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life without
Eighth Amendment. In Gutierrez, our Supreme Court considered whether a judicially created presumption that juvenile offenders convicted of special circumstance murder should receive LWOP sentences under section 190.5, subdivision (b), remained valid in light of Miller. (Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1360.) Before Gutierrez, the presumption created a preference for an LWOP sentence, thereby limiting the trial court‘s discretion to impose a more lenient sentence. (Id. at pp. 1381-1381.)
Our Supreme Court concluded there was no such presumption in section 190.5, subdivision (b), but found that the statute remained constitutional after Miller. (Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 1360-1361.) The court went on to explain that sentencing courts had discretion to impose an LWOP sentence on juvenile offenders convicted of special circumstances murder under section 190.5, “with no presumption in favor” of an LWOP sentence, but that the court had to consider various circumstances outlined in Miller. (Ibid.)
The court then considered the proper disposition given that this change in the law applied retroactively and the two defendants in Gutierrez had been sentenced when the purported presumption in section 190.5, subdivision (b) was the “prevailing authority.” (Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1390Gutierrez court explained that sentencing decisions must be made with the sentencing court‘s “‘informed discretion,‘” and a court that is unaware of the scope of its discretion cannot exercise “‘informed discretion.‘” (Ibid.) Our Supreme Court held that remand is appropriate “[i]n such circumstances” unless the record “‘clearly indicate[s]‘” that the sentencing court would have imposed the
same sentence even if it knew of and exercised its informed discretion. (Ibid.) The record did not clearly indicate that the sentencing courts “would have imposed the same sentence had they been aware of the full scope of their discretion” and knew that there was no presumption in favor of an LWOP sentence in
S.B. 567‘s amendments to
In short, all three tests allow reviewing courts to find S.B. 567 error harmless only if the trial court could have lawfully imposed an upper term based on what a jury might have found true. But because amended
Lopez seemingly recognized this principle when discussing and applying the second part of its test. (Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 467.) The court remanded for resentencing because the record did not “clearly indicate that the trial court would have exercised its discretion to impose an upper term based on an aggravating factor relating to Lopez‘s prior convictions.” (Id. at p. 468.) But that is a different, more demanding standard than the second part of Lopez‘s test, which asks only whether it is reasonably probable that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence “if it had recognized that it could permissibly rely on only a single one of the aggravating factors, a few of the aggravating factors, or none of the aggravating factors, rather than all of the factors on which it previously relied.” (Id. at p. 467, fn. 11.)
In short, reviewing the trial court‘s sentencing decisions for prejudice under Watson at Lopez‘s step two does not answer whether the trial court would have imposed an upper term under amended
As Gutierrez teaches, we may find that a sentencing court would have imposed an upper term under amended
Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the “informed discretion” of the trial court. This requires a sentencing court to be aware of the full scope of its discretion. A change in a mandatory sentencing presumption alters the sentencing court‘s discretion. For instance, the Gutierrez decision expanded a trial court‘s discretion to impose a sentence other than LWOP on certain juvenile offenders by eliminating a judicially imposed presumption that those offenders should receive an LWOP term. Amended
To summarize, there are two questions the reviewing court must ask to determine whether remanding for resentencing under amended
Applying this two-part test here, we conclude remand is appropriate. The trial court found there were no mitigating circumstances while finding there were three aggravating circumstances: (1) the victims were “particularly vulnerable,” (2) the manner defendant carried out the offenses indicated “criminal sophistication and professionalism,” and (3) he engaged in violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to society. (
““[A] ‘particularly vulnerable’ victim is one who is vulnerable ‘in a special or unusual degree, to an extent greater than in other cases.‘“” (People v. Esquibel (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 539, 558.) ““‘Vulnerability means defenseless, unguarded, unprotected, accessible, assailable, one who is susceptible to the defendant‘s criminal act.‘” (People v. DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 154.) A victim is considered particularly vulnerable “where the age or physical characteristics of the victim, or the circumstances under which the crime is committed, make the defendant‘s act especially contemptible.” (People v. Bloom (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 310, 321-322.)
“In the jargon of football players,” an attack on a particularly vulnerable victim is “a cheap shot.” (People v. Smith (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 433, 436.) Examples of “particularly vulnerable victims” thus include individuals attacked while asleep (People v. Loudermilk (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 996) or unconscious (People v. Ramirez (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1512), elderly victims who live alone attacked at home (People v. Alvarado (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178), and victims of gross vehicular manslaughter (People v. Nicolas (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1165).
Although the People highlight evidence suggesting that A.W., T.W., and Jane Doe were particularly vulnerable victims, there was also evidence suggesting that they were not. After meeting defendant, A.W. engaged in prostitution for another pimp and for herself. Jane Doe denied that she worked for any pimp, including defendant. T.W. similarly testified that she engaged in prostitution for herself only, not defendant, and denied that she ever gave him money she earned from her sex work. From this evidence, a reasonable jury could conceivably conclude that A.W., T.W., and Jane Doe were not unusually defenseless against defendant, but rather voluntarily engaged in prostitution. As the trial court put it, the victims were “streetwise.” It is thus reasonably probable that a jury might not have found beyond
We are unaware of any published case that considers the aggravated circumstance that a defendant‘s conduct exhibited “criminal sophistication and professionalism.” Although some evidence suggested that defendant acted “professionally” in that he organized and directed the victims’ schedules and daily quotas, nothing about his conduct was particularly sophisticated. Defendant committed his offenses almost entirely by use of force and violence, not sophisticated methods. As defense counsel argued at sentencing, this was a relatively routine pimping case. A jury therefore could rationally find that defendant‘s conduct did not exhibit criminal sophistication or professionalism.
We are likewise unaware of any published case that meaningfully considers the aggravated circumstance of a defendant engaged in “violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to society.” This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that what constitutes “violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to society” is vague and subjective. (See People v. Sherman (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 402 [finding the circumstance requires a “subjective, qualitative determination[]“].) Our Supreme Court has observed that “to the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.” (Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 840.) Given the ambiguity inherent in this aggravated circumstance, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found it true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because we are uncertain that a jury would have found any of the aggravated circumstances the trial court relied on true beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant‘s sentence is invalid under amended
The court prefaced its ruling by stating that it intended to sentence defendant “to the maximum time permitted by law” and had “no problem”
The court also found that there were no factors in mitigation, particularly given that there was “nothing that indicates” that defendant “had remorse for what happened to these girls,” he tried to “get them to recant their testimony,” and he “did everything he could to try to get out of trouble.” The trial court thus found that the upper terms were “appropriate.”
Although the trial court prefaced its ruling by stating that it intended to sentence defendant “to the maximum time permitted by law” and had “no problem” with doing so, nothing in the trial court‘s statements clearly indicates that it would have imposed an upper term under amended
IV.
DISPOSITION
The sentence on count 9 is ordered reduced to a 12-year term. As modified, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Defendant‘s sentence is vacated and the matter for resentencing consistent with amended
CODRINGTON
J.
I concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
[People v. Lewis, E076449]
RAPHAEL, J., Concurring.
I respectfully concur separately because I would follow People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 459 (Lopez) in remanding for resentencing. I join the opinion and its result except for the portions of section III.C that apply analysis deviating from Lopez.
When Brandon Edward Lewis was sentenced, it was within the trial court‘s “sound discretion” to choose a sentence among the lower, middle, and upper term that “best serves the interests of justice.” (
Later, Senate Bill No. 567, effective January 1, 2022, made the middle-term sentence presumptive and required jury findings (or stipulated facts) for each aggravating factor that a trial court relies on to select an upper-term sentence. (
The change in law applies retroactively, so we must determine whether it was harmless for the court to apply the upper term without jury findings on the underlying facts and without treating the middle-term as presumptive. Lopez correctly holds that we must first decide whether we can “conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt every factor on which the court relied . . . .” (Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 466.)
Lopez‘s first step is correct because, now that our state requires a jury finding for any fact that the trial court relies on to impose an upper-term sentence, the federal constitutional right to a jury determination attaches to every such finding. (See Patterson v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197, 211, fn.12 [federal jury right “has always been dependent on how a State defines the offense that is charged in any given case“]; People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 333 [federal jury right on each element charged].) As the law, applied retroactively, makes it constitutional error for the trial court to have relied on facts not found by a jury, Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 requires that we determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether each error was harmless.
We need not discuss Lopez‘s second step. The second step addresses what the trial court would have done, not what a jury would find. We would need to reach the second step if we concluded that a jury would have found any of the aggravating factors. Then, we could uphold the sentence if we could find that “the trial court would nevertheless have exercised its discretion to select the upper term if it had recognized that it could permissibly rely on” only the factors that we could conclude would have been found by a jury, with the middle term presumptive. (See Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 467, fn. 11). Consistent with how we review most non-constitutional errors, Lopez applies to this determination the familiar People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson) standard that asks whether the result more favorable to the defendant is “reasonably probable.” (Lopez, at pp. 467 & 467 fn.11.)
The majority opinion applies a different two-part test than Lopez applies. It couches the second step in a manner guided by People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Gutierrez) and asks “whether the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence under the new law.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 25.)
The “clear indication” standard applies when a trial court makes a sentencing decision without “awareness of the full scope of discretion” that it has. (Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391.) That standard would apply when a retroactive change in law bestows new sentencing discretion on a trial court, such as the discretion to strike an enhancement. (See People v. Almanza (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1104, 1110.) In that situation, the appellate court may have no relevant record to review, as the trial court would not yet have exercised its discretion. The clear indication standard consequently requires an affirmance to be grounded in record evidence, rather than in speculation.
In contrast, Senate Bill No. 567 applies retroactively to trial courts that did exercise discretion. Because of the change of law, these trial courts may have relied to some extent on an improper factor. When a defendant claims that a trial court relied on inapplicable factors in support of a sentencing choice, the “reasonable probability” standard applies. ( People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354-355; see People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 426 [clear indication standard inapplicable to deciding whether a court “is likely to repeat a choice it already made“].) Like most harmlessness inquiries, this review of a court ruling is inherently an analysis of what the record indicates. Lopez correctly applies the Watson “reasonable probability” standard to its second-step determination, though we need not reach that step here because reversal is required after the first step.
RAPHAEL
J.