THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANTHONY SCOTT ZABELLE, Defendant and Appellant.
C093173
(Super. Ct. No. LODCRFECOD20200006207)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
Filed 7/11/22
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
Erica Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Ross K. Naughton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant Anthony Scott Zabelle guilty of second degree robbery. It also found true the allegation that he inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the robbery.
On appeal, defendant challenges his conviction and resulting sentence for two reasons. First, he contends the trial court wrongly admitted a confession he made to officers following an allegedly coercive interrogation. Defendant bases his argument on two statements from the officers. In the first, one officer said, “[T]here is a very critical time where you can earn possibly some consideration.” In the second, the same officer said, “Sometimes” it “works in your favor” to be “honest,” “up front,” and “admit[]. . . your involvement“; “[s]ometimes it doesn‘t.” Defendant characterizes these statements as promises of leniency that improperly induced him to confess. Second, based on a recent amendment to
We find defendant‘s second argument, though not his first, persuasive. Starting with his claim concerning his allegedly coerced confession, defendant has at most shown an officer informed him that his full cooperation might be beneficial in an unspecified way. But as case law makes clear, that is not enough to show improper coercion. Turning to his next claim premised on
I. BACKGROUND
Most of the facts relevant to this opinion are indisputable and documented on video. Defendant approached a man named Scott from behind, hit him over the head with a glass bottle, and, after Scott fell to the ground, stomped on his head. Defendant and an accomplice then rifled through Scott‘s pockets, with both taking some of Scott‘s possessions. Although not clear from the video evidence, defendant later testified that he took Scott‘s pipe and knife, and his accomplice took Scott‘s wallet. Defendant added that his accomplice later shared the wallet‘s contents, about $100, with him. In defendant‘s telling, Scott earlier induced defendant to give him the $100 based on a false promise and defendant approached Scott intending to recover this money. A police officer later found Scott lying on his back in the alley where the attack took place, appearing either to be unconscious or asleep. Another officer arrived soon after and noticed a cut about two-inches long on Scott‘s head.
Shortly after these events, two officers stopped defendant and questioned him at a motel. The relevant part of the conversation, which was recorded on video and preceded by a warning under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, went as follows according to the transcript:
“Q: Do you understand your rights?
“A: I do.
“P: Okay.
“A: I didn‘t rob nobody though.
“Q: There is—there is a very critical time where you can earn possibly some consideration. “Q1: Okay[.] [T]here‘s video of the whole incident and—and—and it goes—Calvin‘s giving you up[.] [Y]ou[‘re] right [in] front, you filled up[,] you go right to your room[,] and then you change your clothes[.] [Y]ou were wearing a Washington Nationals hat. Come on[,] man. I let‘s just. . ..
“Q: So how—how—how much money did Calvin give you?
“A: I have $41 in my pocket.
“Q1: That‘s—did he give you that $41?
“A: Can we go up there[?]
“Q1: Can we go up?
[Defendant and the officers go upstairs to defendant‘s motel room.]
“Q: Anybody else in here?
“Man: (Unintelligible)
“Q: All right[.] [S]tand right there.
:Q1: (Unintelligible).
“Man: Close the door[.]
“[A:] He was on the outside (unintelligible). Okay. You know what I mean. Like this and that. It is what it is. I mean but. . . Fuck[,] man.
“Q1: I knew it was you and Calvin[,] so.
“Q: How much—how much money did he give you?
“A: $41.
“Q: $41. And that was from what?
“A: It was just from the—the dude.
“Q: From that dude? What did you do to that dude?
“A: Um, we got into it. I mean that‘s about it. “Q: You and the dude got into it.
“A: We had words this and that. ([U]nintelligible) we got into it. (unintelligible) the money—he gave me money.
“Q: Explain to me—just—I—I wasn‘t there.
“A: I know but [unintelligible] use against me. You read me my rights.
“Q: Yeah, I did.
“A: That‘s the thing. ([U]nintelligible) y‘all[‘]s situation he trying[] to deal with that cause it is what is[.] I mean[,] [y]ou know how it goes. Next time you see it walks off (unintelligible). You know, I already got enough issues as it is with people. ([U]nintelligible) because I ain‘t from out here.
“Q: No. I got it. But—but here‘s the deal. You know we can‘t make any guarantees but sometimes being honest and up front, admitting your involvement and—and what you did can go a[ ]ways to showing your remorse and—
“A: Yeah[,] I know but I mean I‘d rather . .
“Q: Sometimes that works in your favor. Sometimes it doesn‘t.
“A: ([U]nintelligible) dough. ([U]nintelligible)
“Q: Okay. How‘d you get the blood on your shoes?
“A: I don‘t know. ([U]nintelligible.) I don‘t know exactly how.
“Q: Bro.
“A: I know. Come on[,] man.
“Q: His—his head got stomped.
“A: Okay, I mean . .
“Q: All right. Is that gonna be his blood?
“A: Hey[,] I don‘t know. Yeah. Fuck[,] man.
“Q: Is that going to be his blood? “A: Probably.
“Q: Probably? Okay. All right. Because we . . .
“A: Search me, search me. ([U]nintelligible] I‘m not trying to do all of this. It was a mistake or somethin’ stupid to do[,] you know what I mean[.] [L]ike[,] we just—we just. . .
“Q1: Look[,] I can‘t just let you walk from this but—
“A: Then don‘t tell me give you somethin[‘] (unintelligible).
“Q: Here—here—here—[n]o. [N]o—no—no—no.
“Q1: ([U]nintelligible).
“Q: Hey, hey. Straight up. Look at me for a second, okay? All right? This is the way it works. All right. You gotta go in, you gotta get booked for this because the nature of your crime right now we can‘t let you walk. Okay? Look at me.
“A: I know—I‘m stupid[,] man. Fuck.”
After being charged with second degree robbery with a great bodily injury enhancement based on these events, defendant moved to suppress his confession to the officers. He argued that his confession was unlawfully coerced based on one of the officer‘s promises of leniency. He pointed, in support, to two of the officer‘s statements: First, the officer‘s statement that “[t]here is a very critical time where you can earn possibly some consideration“; and second, the officer‘s statement that “sometimes” it “works in your favor” to be “honest,” “upfront,” and “admit[]. . . your involvement“; “sometimes it doesn‘t.” The trial court denied the motion, concluding “that this interrogation was not coercive.”
A jury later found defendant guilty of second degree robbery (
Defendant timely appealed.
A. Defendant‘s Confession
Defendant first contends the trial court wrongly admitted his confession to the officers. He reasons that one of “the officer[s] coerced [his] confession with implied promises that he would receive consideration and leniency if he admitted to the allegations against him.” He also asserts that the trial court‘s failure to exclude this testimony was prejudicial. The Attorney General, in turn, contends defendant‘s claim fails for three reasons. First, his claim fails because he cannot show “that anything the police said could reasonably be taken as a promise.” Second, his claim fails because he cannot show “that any supposed promise was the motivating cause of anything he said.” And third, even if the confession should have been excluded, his claim still fails because “any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” We conclude defendant‘s confession was properly admitted.
Although, of course, not all incriminating confessions are inadmissible, officially coerced confessions violate the Fifth Amendment‘s privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and the guarantee of due process. (See Withrow v. Williams (1993) 507 U.S. 680, 688 [the Fifth Amendment bars the admission of “involuntary confessions made in response to custodial interrogation“]; see also id. at p. 689 [the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states].) “This is so not because such confessions are unlikely to be true but because the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law: that ours is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system—a system in which the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and may not by coercion prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth.” (Rogers v. Richmond (1961) 365 U.S. 534, 540-541.)
Courts, as relevant here, will deem a confession to be ” ‘involuntary and therefore inadmissible if it was elicited by any promise of benefit or leniency whether express or implied. [Citations.] However, mere advice or exhortation by the police that it would be better for the accused to tell the truth when unaccompanied by either a threat or a promise does not render a subsequent confession involuntary. . . . Thus, “[w]hen the benefit pointed out by the police to a suspect is merely that which flows naturally from a truthful and honest course of conduct,” the subsequent statement will not be considered involuntarily made. [Citation.] On the other hand, “if . . . the defendant is given to understand that he might reasonably expect benefits in the nature of more lenient treatment at the hands of the police, prosecution or court in
In this case, in arguing his confession was improperly coerced, defendant focuses on two statements from one of the interrogating officers. In the first, the officer vaguely said, “[T]here is a very critical time where you can earn possibly some consideration.” And in the second, the same officer said, “[W]e can‘t make any guarantees but sometimes being honest and up front, admitting your involvement and—and what you did can go a[ ]ways to showing your remorse and” “[s]ometimes that works in your favor. Sometimes it doesn‘t.”
Starting with the first challenged statement, defendant characterizes it as “an implied promise of leniency.” But we find this statement too vague, under the circumstances of this case, to evidence a promise of anything. At most, the officer simply informed defendant that full cooperation “c[ould] possibly” be beneficial in some unspecified way. But that is not enough to show improper coercion under case precedent. (See People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 174 [finding no promise of leniency when “[t]he interviewing officers did not suggest they could influence the decisions of the district attorney, but simply informed defendant that full cooperation might be beneficial in an unspecified way“]; People v. Falaniko (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1251 [finding no promise of leniency in “officers’ exhortations for honesty and cooperation” and “statement that the judge would consider appellant‘s cooperation“; “such ‘brief and bland references . . . do not push this case over the forbidden line of promised threats or vowed leniency’ “], disapproved on another ground in People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 607, fn. 5.)
Turning to the second challenged statement, defendant contends this statement was “another implied promise of leniency.” But this claim too falls short. As our Supreme Court has explained, ” ’ ” “[w]hen the benefit pointed out by the police to a suspect is merely that which flows naturally from a truthful and honest course of conduct,” the subsequent statement will not be considered involuntarily made.” ’ ” (Holloway, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 115.) And that is all that occurred here. The officer truthfully told defendant that “sometimes” it “works in your favor” to be “honest,” “up front,” and “admit[] . . . involvement“; “[s]ometimes it doesn‘t.” (See
B. Section 1170
Defendant next, in a supplemental brief, focuses on a recent amendment to
New criminal laws generally operate only prospectively unless the enacting body “expressly” declares a contrary intent. (
This presumption favors retroactive application of
For these reasons, like both the parties, we find
We also, again like both the parties, find that remand for resentencing is appropriate in this case. But we do not do so simply because, as defendant and the Attorney General note, the trial court relied on facts that were not found true in the manner
We thus, before finding remand appropriate, must first subject the trial court‘s error to harmless error review. Reviewing courts subject most trial court errors to harmless error review, either under the standard described in Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman) or the standard described in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 (Watson). (People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 195-196; but see id. at p. 196 [errors that are structural in nature are not subject to harmless error analysis].) The Chapman standard covers errors involving “violations of the federal Constitution” and “requires reversal unless the error is harmless ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (Id. at pp. 195-196.) The Watson standard, in turn, covers errors involving violations of state law and requires reversal if “it is ‘reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.’ ” (Id. at p. 195.) We find both these standards relevant in reviewing the trial court‘s error here.
First, we find Chapman applies. That is because the trial court‘s error violated defendant‘s right to trial by jury safeguarded by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court‘s decision in Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270 (Cunningham) demonstrates as much. The court there considered an earlier version of
The current text of
We thus must review the trial court‘s error under the standard described in Chapman.3 And more particularly, we must apply this standard in the manner detailed in
People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 (Sandoval). Our Supreme Court there, in the wake of Cunningham, considered the appropriate application of Chapman for “[t]he [unconstitutional] denial of the right to a jury trial on aggravating circumstances.” (Id. at p. 838.) In laying out its reasoning, the court explained that ” ‘the constitutional requirement of a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to a fact that is “legally essential to the punishment.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 838-839.) And because, the court went on, all that was legally essential to authorize a trial court to impose an upper term sentence under former
Second, apart from finding Chapman applies, we also find Watson applies in this case. It applies because even if we find the jury would have found true at least one of the aggravating circumstances that the trial court relied on, we still must grapple with the trial court‘s reliance on other aggravating circumstances inconsistent with the current requirements of
In reaching this conclusion on the appropriate framework for harmless error review, we agree in part and disagree in part with Flores, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th 495, one of a few recent published decisions to consider this issue in the context of Senate Bill No. 567. Like Flores, we agree we must review the trial court‘s error under the standard generally described in Chapman and specifically applied in Sandoval. (Flores, supra, at p. 500.) But unlike Flores, we find this analysis insufficient in itself to justify affirmance. Sandoval considered a similar Sixth Amendment error that necessitated Chapman review. (Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 838-839.) That is why we agree it is relevant to our analysis. But Sandoval is different in that here, unlike in Sandoval, we also have state law error. And so we also have to consider whether this state law error, in addition to the Sixth Amendment error, was harmless. That requires us to apply Watson.4
We agree in principle with these conclusions. But we find it helpful to frame the issue somewhat differently. Again, similar to Lopez, we also apply a two-step process when evaluating for prejudice in these circumstances, with the first step evaluating for Chapman error under Sandoval‘s framework and the second step evaluating for Watson error. But unlike the Lopez court, we find a reviewing court must always evaluate for Watson error before concluding that the trial court‘s error was harmless. True enough, as the Lopez court concluded, a defendant has not suffered prejudice if “a jury would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt all of the aggravating factors on which the trial court relied.” (Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 467, fn. 11.) But that is because, in that case, it was not reasonably probable that the trial court would have chosen a lesser sentence had it fully complied with
Applying these principles in this case, we find that the denial of defendant‘s right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances was harmless in terms of the Sixth Amendment violation. But we cannot say the same for the state law violation. At sentencing, the trial court found two factors in mitigation: (1) defendant “admitted early” his participation in the crime, and (2) Scott “did not request to go the hospital at the time” of the attack. It also
As all parties acknowledge, the trial court found none of these aggravating facts consistent with the current text of
Still, at least four of the trial court‘s listed factors in aggravation appear to be indisputable. Video evidence clearly shows the attack “was two against one” with defendant and his accomplice attacking Scott from behind. It shows defendant used a weapon, a glass bottle, to knock Scott down. It shows defendant “kicked [Scott] in the head” when Scott was on the ground with his hands around his head. And it shows defendant left Scott injured and alone in an alley. It also, as to another of the court‘s listed factors, shows defendant “rifled through [Scott‘s] pockets” after knocking Scott to the ground. But it does not, as the court further found, show that he “took [Scott‘s] wallet.” Instead, at least according to defendant‘s testimony at trial, defendant‘s accomplice took Scott‘s wallet and defendant took Scott‘s knife and pipe.5
On this record, we find the Sixth Amendment error was plainly harmless. In particular, we find “beyond a reasonable doubt, that the jury, applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, unquestionably would have found true at least a single aggravating circumstance had it been submitted to the jury.” (Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 839.) But we cannot find the state law error harmless too. Although, as mentioned, we are satisfied that the jury would
III. DISPOSITION
The conviction is affirmed and the sentence is vacated. The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the recent amendment to
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
HULL, Acting P. J.
/S/
DUARTE, J.