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 ...
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