Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

does not result in federal constitutional error within the meaning of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 u.s. 466: 3 Rather, Sengpadychith found the instructional error to be a matter of state law error subject to the Watson test. (People v. Sengpadychith, supra, 26 Ca1.4th at pp. 320-321.) Respondent thus contends that because appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate term, the Watson standard is the governing standard ofreview. (RB at p. 158-159.) However, appellant did not predicate his claim that Chapman was the appropriate governing standard for this instructional error on Apprendi grounds. Instead, appellant's claim is based upon Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S. 12, 16, and the cases cited therein pertaining to the trial court's failure to instruct a jury on all of the statutory elements of an offense. (See AOB at p. 78.) The United States Supreme Court has concluded in a series ofcases that various forms of instructional error are federal constitutional trial errors subject to Chapman harmless-error review. (See, e.g., Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U. S. 1 (omission of an element of an offense); California v. Roy (1996) 519 U.S. 2 (erroneous aider and abettor instruction); Pope v. Illinois (1987) 481 U.S. 497 (misstatement of an element of an offense); Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570 (erroneous burden-shifting as to an element ofan offense). Recently, on December 2, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that harmless-error review was the governing standard in a federal habeas case in which the defendant was convicted by a jury that had been instructed on alternative theories of guilt, one of which was invalid 4 • (Hedgpeth v. Pulido (2008) _ U.S. _; 129 S.Ct. 530; 172 L.Ed.2d 388, "Pulido".) 3 In Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, the U.S. Supreme Court held as a matter of federal constitutional law: "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." (Id. at p. 490.) 4 Pulido observed that Neder had made clear "that harmless-error analysis applies to instructional errors so long as the error at issue does not categorically , " 44
Appellant has explained above and in the opening brief that his jury was instructed with a legally flawed instruction on the gang benefit enhancement. The court instructed the jury it had to find the elements of the substantive offense of gang participation instead of the elements of the gang benefit enhancement. The legal flaw was that the instruction was legally invalid for the enhancement. In Pulido, the court instructed the jury it could fmd the defendant guilty of felony murder if he formed the intent to aid and abet the underlying felony after the murder, a legally invalid theory. A legally flawed instruction is akin to instructing the jury on a legally invalid theory, such as occurred in Pulido. Just as Chapman harmless-error review was appropriate in Pulido, Neder, Roy, Pope, and Rose, supra, Chapman harmless-error review is appropriate in appellant's case. Nothing in those cases suggests that a different harmless-error analysis should govern here. (See Pulido, supra, 129 S.Ct at p. 532.) D. The Instructional Error Was Not Harmless Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Unlike errors subject to the standard ofPeople v. Watson, supra, 46 Ca1.2d at 836, which are only reversible if it is reasonably probable that the defendant would have obtained a better result in absence of the error, instructions that omit elements of the offense or which fail to instruct on all elements of an offense should be tested under the standard for federal constitutional error, namely the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18. (Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1; People v, Cummings (1993) 4 Ca1.4th 1233, 1313; People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Ca1.4th 142, 194" dis, opn, Kennard, J,) Chapman analysis, which is the proper standard for federal constitutional error, 'vitiat[e] all the jury's fmdings.'''''' (Hedgpeth v. Pulido, supra, 129 S,Ct. at p. 532 [quoting Neder v. United States, supra, 527 U,S, at p, 11; in tum, quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U,S, 275, 281 (erroneous reasonable doubt instructions constitute structural error)],) Here, notably, the gang benefit instructional error vitiates the jury's finding on the charged personal firearm use (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1». (AOB 133-134.) 45
Page 2 and 3:
TABLE OF CONTENTS APPELLANT WILLIAM
Page 4 and 5:
2. The Pleadings Failed To NotifY A
Page 6 and 7:
VI THE JURy FAILED TO FIND THE DEGR
Page 8 and 9: C. Standard OfReview And Prejudice
Page 10 and 11: XIII APPELLANT JOINS IN ALL ISSUES
Page 12 and 13: Mitchell v. Esparza (2003) 540 U.S.
Page 14 and 15: People v. Cruz (2001) 93 Cal.App.4t
Page 16 and 17: People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 2
Page 18 and 19: CALlIC No. 8.31 passim CALJIC No. 8
Page 20 and 21: ARGUMENTS GUILT PHASE ISSUES I THE
Page 22 and 23: the facts indicate that only one de
Page 24 and 25: form finding "personal use" to have
Page 26 and 27: 57 Cal.AppAth 871, 877; 9 Witkin, C
Page 28 and 29: the weapon. Without again recountin
Page 30 and 31: Respondent notes that between the m
Page 32 and 33: In another apparent attempt to just
Page 34 and 35: appellant has repeatedly said, the
Page 37 and 38: not present them to the trial court
Page 39 and 40: In People v. Knighten (1980) 105 Ca
Page 41 and 42: Finally, it must be noted that the
Page 43 and 44: B. The Constitutional Issues Are No
Page 45 and 46: turn relied on the language from Wi
Page 47 and 48: Indeed, in this case the instructio
Page 49 and 50: as the prosecution's first-degree t
Page 51 and 52: F. Conclusion In summary, by failin
Page 53 and 54: As appellant explained in the openi
Page 55 and 56: in the manner suggested by responde
Page 57: Furthennore, it is well established
Page 61 and 62: Cal.App.3d 970, 992.) Instead, resp
Page 63 and 64: 3. Appellant's Did Not Forfeit His
Page 65 and 66: In Argument V of the Opening Brief,
Page 67 and 68: IV IN FAILING TO REDACT PORTIONS OF
Page 69 and 70: People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Ca1.3d
Page 71 and 72: have been unreasonable for the jury
Page 73 and 74: shot Fuller and Robinson, and that
Page 75 and 76: find 'intent to kill'" on the basis
Page 77 and 78: THE COURT'S ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION A
Page 79 and 80: Robinson's wounds indicated the sho
Page 81 and 82: caused great bodily injury or death
Page 83 and 84: use enhancement, the statutory lang
Page 85 and 86: 192-193), but fails to explain how
Page 87 and 88: Then we have the words "personal us
Page 89 and 90: trial and had therefore forfeited t
Page 91 and 92: merits of appellant's claim. (AOB a
Page 93 and 94: jury trial. (People v. Gottman (197
Page 95 and 96: Respondent argues that another theo
Page 97 and 98: needs to rely on the penalty verdic
Page 99 and 100: may not cross-examine a witness upo
Page 101 and 102: itself to appellant would be improp
Page 103 and 104: B. The Court Erred In Refusing The
Page 105 and 106: egarding the intent ofthe non-shoot
Page 107 and 108: B. Respondent's Arguments Are Mispl
Page 109 and 110:
ut is only being allowed for use ag
Page 111 and 112:
x THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTI
Page 113 and 114:
XI THE PROSECUTOR'S MISCONDUCT IN A
Page 115 and 116:
"guarantee." Appellant is not proce
Page 117 and 118:
v. Berryman (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1048,
Page 119 and 120:
Contreras. Viewed in this context,
Page 122 and 123:
overwhelmingly showed that only one
Page 124 and 125:
XII GUILT AND PENALTY PHASE VERDICT
Page 126 and 127:
Where Juror No. 2211 is concerned,
Page 128 and 129:
The jury in Cruz was given a versio
Page 130 and 131:
PENALTY PHASE ISSUES XIV THE TRIAL
Page 132 and 133:
B. The Flaw In Respondent's Content
Page 134 and 135:
participation ofall jurors. Contrar
Page 136 and 137:
confuse[d]" (Harris) is no more tha
Page 138:
It is submitted that these instruct
Page 141 and 142:
inherent power to review an issue i
Page 143 and 144:
prospective jurors who were found t
Page 145 and 146:
(Id at p. 821.) This court has char
Page 147 and 148:
church. (18RT 4448:4-6,4451:11-14.)
Page 149 and 150:
(18RT 4450:12-14) or her mother (18
Page 151 and 152:
had in fact reached an impasse at t
Page 153 and 154:
There is an impasse. It is hung. Bu
Page 155 and 156:
establishes, for example, that, whe
Page 157 and 158:
and Code of Civil Procedure 233, wh
Page 159 and 160:
a demonstrable reality. The court a
Page 161 and 162:
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT Rule 8.63
show all

Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?