People v. Morrison
Citation | 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 849,34 Cal.App.5th 217 |
Decision Date | 11 April 2019 |
Docket Number | A154092 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Warren Oleg MORRISON, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. |
Hey and Hey, Randy Hey, Redwood City, for the Defendant and Appellant.
George Lawrence Schraer, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney General, Eric D. Share, and Alisha Carlile, Deputy Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Warren Oleg Morrison, Jr. was tried before a jury and convicted of the first degree murder of Jarmal Magee with an enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm causing death. ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).)1 In this appeal from a sentence of 50 years to life after a recall of the sentence under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1),2 appellant contends the trial court misunderstood the scope of its discretion under recent amendments to section 12022.53, which allow the court to strike an enhancement imposed under its provisions. We agree the court had the discretion to impose a lesser firearm enhancement and remand the case for resentencing so it can exercise its discretion.
Due to the limited nature of the issue raised in this appeal, it is not necessary to discuss the facts at length. Briefly, on October 25, 2015, appellant shot Magee several times during an argument. Magee’s girlfriend at the time testified that appellant pulled the gun from his own waistband and continued to shoot even after Magee was disabled. Appellant claimed Magee pulled the gun from his (Magee’s) waistband and it initially discharged during their struggle; he continued to shoot Magee after gaining control of the gun because he was angry and afraid. The jury convicted appellant of first degree premeditated murder and found a firearm enhancement true under section 12022.53, subdivision (d).
Appellant was sentenced to prison for 50 years to life on September 7, 2017—25 years to life on the murder count and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. On December 6, 2017, appellant filed a request to recall the sentence pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), based on recent amendments to section 12022.53 that gave the court the discretion, effective January 1, 2018, to strike a firearm enhancement under its provisions. The court held a hearing on January 3, 2018 in which it recalled the sentence but denied the request to strike the firearm enhancement. In a hearing held on February 8, 2018, at which appellant was personally present, the court reimposed the original sentence of 50 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for the murder count and 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.
Appellant argues the case should be remanded for resentencing because the court did not understand the scope of its discretion. He acknowledges that the trial court acted properly in declining to strike the enhancement completely. But he argues the court had the discretion to modify the enhancement from that established by section 12022.53, subdivision (d), which carries a term of 25 years to life, to a "lesser included" enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b) or (c), which carry lesser terms of 10 years or 20 years, respectively.
( People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1124–1125, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 569, 184 P.3d 702.) Section 12022.53, subdivision (f) provides,
The information in this case originally charged appellant with three firearm enhancements: personal use of a firearm, personal discharge of a firearm, and personal discharge of a firearm causing death. ( § 12022.53, subdivision (b) – (d).) At trial, the prosecutor amended the information to remove the enhancements for personal use and discharge of a firearm under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c), leaving only the enhancement for personal discharge causing death under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The jury found this enhancement allegation to be true.
At the time of sentencing in this case, in September 2017, trial courts did not have the discretion to strike enhancements under section 12022.53. (Former § 12022.53, subd. (h).) On October 11, 2017, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), which amended sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 to provide trial courts with the discretion to strike a firearm enhancement or finding. (Stats 2017, ch. 682.) Senate Bill 620 added the following language to both statutes: (Stats 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1(c)–2(h).)
Courts now may "strike or dismiss" an enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) in the interests of justice under section 1385. In a case where the jury had also returned true findings of the lesser enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c), the striking of an enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) would leave intact the remaining findings, and an enhancement under the greatest of those provisions would be mandatory unless those findings were also stricken in the interests of justice. But what if, as here, enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c) were not also alleged? May the court impose one of those lesser enhancements in lieu of the greater enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) if the court finds it is in the interests of justice to do so?
Case law has recognized that the court may impose a "lesser included" enhancement that was not charged in the information when a greater enhancement found true by the trier of fact is either legally inapplicable or unsupported by sufficient evidence. ( People v. Fialho (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395–1396, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ( Fialho ) [ ]; People v. Strickland (1974) 11 Cal.3d 946, 961, 114 Cal.Rptr. 632, 523 P.2d 672 ; People v. Lucas (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 721, 743, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 282 ; People v. Allen (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 616, 627, 211 Cal.Rptr. 837 [ ]; People v. Dixon (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 985, 1001–1002, 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 637 [ ].) This is so regardless of section 1170.1, subdivision (e), which requires all enhancements to be pleaded and proved in the accusatory pleading. ( Fialho , at pp. 1397–1399, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.)
Under these cases, the court could impose an uncharged enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b) or (c) in lieu of an enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) if it was unsupported by substantial evidence or was defective or legally inapplicable in some other respect. We see no reason a court could not also impose one of these enhancements after striking an enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), under section 1385. This conclusion is further buttressed by People v. Marsh (1984) 36 Cal.3d 134, 143–144, 202 Cal.Rptr. 92, 679 P.2d 1033, in which the court remanded for resentencing and held the court could strike allegations of ransom and great bodily harm to make the defendant eligible for a Youth Authority3 commitment. ... ( Id . at p. 144, 202 Cal.Rptr. 92, 679 P.2d 1033.)
The court had the discretion to impose an enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b) o...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Wang
...The court then declared, "And again, the Court refuses to strike the 12022.53(d) allegation."Relying on People v. Morrison (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 217, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 ( Morrison ), appellant asserts that, because at the time of sentencing in this case, "no published decision had held tha......
-
People v. Delavega
...held that courts have such discretion even when the lesser enhancement was not charged separately. ( People v. Morrison (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 217, 222, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 ( Morrison ).) Subsequent cases have disagreed, holding that courts have such discretion only when a lesser enhancement......
-
People v. Thompson
...Cal.App.5th 1080, 1090-1091, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 318.)After the amendment to section 12022.53, subdivision (h), People v. Morrison (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 217, 223, 245 Cal.Rptr.3d 849 ( Morrison ) held that 83 Cal.App.5th 115 trial courts have "discretion to impose an enhancement under section 1......
-
People v. Jacobs
...section, the court shall impose upon that person the enhancement that provides the longest term of imprisonment." In People v. Morrison (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 217 (Morrison), the Court of Appeal held that an uncharged enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b) or (c) can be imposed ......