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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

jury wanted to hold each defendant liable for the gun use enhancement is also<br />

specious and amounts to no more than arguing the end justifies the means.<br />

The language <strong>of</strong>the verdict forms mattered. They failed to provide the jury<br />

with the legally available range <strong>of</strong> verdict options. The language made no<br />

provision for finding any defendant liable for the enhancement as an accomplice<br />

under the pro<strong>of</strong> requirements identified by this court in People v. Garcia, supra,<br />

28 CaI.4th at p. 1174.)<br />

The deficiencies in the language <strong>of</strong> the verdict forms conformed with the<br />

instructional errors described above and in the opening brief and with the<br />

misdirection in the prosecutor's argument. As a result, the gun use findings are<br />

inherently invalid.<br />

G. <strong>Appellant</strong> Did Not Forfeit His Constitutional Claims, Including His<br />

Apprendi-Blakely Claim<br />

Respondent contends appellant has forfeited his constitutional claims by a<br />

failure to object below. Respondent is wrong.<br />

Respondent supports its contention with a reference to People v. Thornton<br />

(2007) 41 CaI.4th 391, 462-463. (RB at p. 184.)9 However, Thornton does not<br />

help respondent. In Thornton, this court considered a Batson-Wheeler lO claim in<br />

connection with the selection <strong>of</strong> an alternate to replace a sitting juror. Although<br />

this court noted the defendant had failed to raise a Batson-Wheeler challenge at<br />

9 Respondent repeats his claim that appellant has forfeited his constitutional<br />

claims with each <strong>of</strong>the briefed issues and relies on Thornton, supra, among other<br />

cases on each occasion. <strong>Appellant</strong> briefly discusses Thornton here and, in lieu <strong>of</strong><br />

repeating his reply to respondent's forfeiture contention, respectfully refers the<br />

reader to appellant's discussion <strong>of</strong>this issue as discussed above at pp. 21-23.)<br />

10 Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (federal constitutional guaranty <strong>of</strong> equal<br />

protection <strong>of</strong> the laws applied to jury selection). People v. Wheeler (1978) 22<br />

CaI.3d 258 (state constitutional right to jury drawn from representative crosssection<br />

<strong>of</strong>the community).<br />

74

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!