14.06.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

opinion, is contrary to the facts and clearly contrary to the theory<br />

upon which the case was tried. The point was not seriously urged by<br />

appellant until the filing <strong>of</strong> its reply brief. Until that time it appears<br />

that it was the theory <strong>of</strong> all concerned that the question involved was<br />

whether Searle as agent <strong>of</strong> the Ernsts had ostensible authority to<br />

deliver the deed and collect the purchase price. The rule is well<br />

settled that the theory upon which a case is tried must be adhered to<br />

on appeal. A party is not permitted to change his position and adopt<br />

a new and different theory on appeal. To permit him to do so would<br />

not only be unfair to the trial court, but manifestly unjust to the<br />

opposing litigant. [Citation.]<br />

(Ernst v. Searle, supra. 218 Cal. at pp. 240-241.)<br />

<strong>Appellant</strong> respectfully submits that respondent should be estopped from<br />

asserting the two-shooter theory on appeal, since such theory stands in direct<br />

contrast to the theory under which the case was prosecuted and tried to the jury.<br />

C. The Pro<strong>of</strong>Requirements Of Penal Code Section 12022.53, Subds.<br />

(D) And (E)(I)<br />

In the opening brief, appellant discussed the case <strong>of</strong> People v. Garcia<br />

(2002) 28 Cal.4th 1166, in which this court identified the separate pro<strong>of</strong>s needed<br />

to impose liability under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(l),<br />

upon a defendant/shooter and a defendant/aider and abettor. (AOB at p. 102-103.)<br />

Garcia explained that a defendant/shooter who is convicted <strong>of</strong> a specified<br />

felony and who is found to have intentionally and personally discharged a firearm<br />

proximately causing great bodily injury or death when committing that felony is<br />

subject to section 12022.53, subdivision (d). (People v. Garcia, supra, 28 Cal.4th<br />

at p. 1173.) This court further explained that in order to fmd an aider and abettor<br />

who is not the shooter liable under subdivision (e), "the prosecution must plead<br />

and prove that (1) a principal committed an <strong>of</strong>fense enumerated in section<br />

12022.53, subdivision (a), section 246, or section 12034, subdivision (c) or (d);<br />

(2) a principal intentionally and personally discharged a firearm and proximately<br />

66

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!