See Concurring Opinion
Filed 3/2/23 1 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E076449
v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB18002088)
BRANDON EDWARD LEWIS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. J. David Mazurek,
Judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Warren J.
Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of sections III.A and III.B.
1 I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Brandon Lewis was sentenced to over 73 years in prison
after a jury convicted him of various offenses associated with his pimping three victims
who were minors. Defendant contends his Sixth Amendment right to confront an accuser
was violated because a computer monitor blocked his view of her face when she testified.
We disagree. Defendant also contends, the People concede, and we agree that a portion
of his sentence was unauthorized. We therefore strike that portion of his sentence.
Finally, defendant argues the case must be remanded for resentencing in light of recently
enacted legislation. We agree, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. In all
other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.W. met defendant in Las Vegas when she was 17 years old. She was homeless
at the time and defendant offered her a place to stay so long as she helped him make
money. After living with defendant for about two weeks, A.W. began prostituting herself
for defendant. A.W. eventually moved in with defendant’s girlfriend, T.W., who was
also one of defendant’s “girls.”
During a “date,” a customer began choking T.W., so A.W. physically assaulted
him. The customer reported T.W., A.W., and defendant to the police, stating that they
2 held him against his will. The three of them fled Las Vegas for San Bernardino, where
A.W. and T.W. continued prostituting themselves for defendant.
In the ensuing months, defendant became increasingly violent toward A.W. and
T.W. He also became increasing controlling of A.W. If A.W. did not do as she was told,
defendant used or threatened to use violence. On several occasions, defendant threatened
and hit A.W. with a gun. He repeatedly beat both A.W. and T.W. in front of one another.
He beat A.W. so severely on one occasion that she had to go to the hospital, where
defendant instructed her to lie about what happened. Not long afterwards, defendant
again beat A.W. so badly that she vomited and had to go to the hospital. She told the
police at the hospital that defendant caused her injuries and she was taken to a women’s
shelter. A.W. later moved back in with defendant.
In April 2018, defendant unexpectedly showed up where A.W. was eating and told
her to get in his car. Once she was inside the car, defendant hit her and drove off.
Defendant drove around for over 90 minutes and refused to let A.W. get out of the car.
During that time, defendant poured alcohol on her, punched her in the face at least 15
times, hit her in the face with his gun, told her she was “just a slave,” and threatened to
shoot and kill her.
Defendant eventually stopped in a dark area near a ditch and told A.W. to get out.
He told A.W. he was going to shoot her and leave her in the ditch, while kicking her
repeatedly as she lay on the ground. After he ordered her back in the car, he told her he
and his friends were going to gang rape her. While they were stopped at a red light, A.W.
3 jumped out of the car and ran and hid behind a house. The next day, A.W. reported
defendant’s abuse to law enforcement while at the hospital. A.W. moved back in with
defendant, but eventually left and returned to Las Vegas.
Jane Doe moved from San Bernardino into defendant’s Las Vegas apartment when
she was 16 years old, thinking that they were boyfriend and girlfriend. Within a few
days, however, she realized defendant was planning on pimping her out as a prostitute.
About a year later, Jane Doe began prostituting herself for defendant in San
Bernardino. Jane Doe ended up working for defendant every day for two or three years.
As with A.W., defendant threatened Jane Doe with violence if she did not do what she
was told.
Defendant was arrested and charged with various pimping-related offenses against
T.W., A.W., and Jane Doe. A jury convicted him of human trafficking of A.W. to 2 commit another crime (Pen. Code, §§ 236.1, subd. (b), 266h; count 1) , pimping of A.W.
(§ 266h; count 2), two counts of pandering by procuring prostitution by A.W. and T.W.
(§ 266i, subd. (a)(1); counts 3 & 7), kidnapping of A.W. (§ 207, subd. (a); count 4),
assault with a firearm against A.W. (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 5), criminal threats against
A.W. (§ 422, subd. (a); count 6), human trafficking of Jane Doe, a minor (§§ 236.1, subd.
(c)(1), 266h; count 8), and pandering by procuring prostitution by Jane Doe, a minor
(§ 266i, subd. (b)(1); count 9).
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
4 The jury also found true allegations that defendant caused great bodily injury to
A.W. in the commission of count 1 (§ 236.4, subd. (b)), and that he personally used a
firearm in the commission of counts 1, 5, and 6 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court
also found true a prior strike allegation (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
Defendant was sentenced to 73 years, four months in prison.
III.
DISCUSSION
A. Sixth Amendment
Defendant argues his convictions on counts 1 through 7 must be reversed because
he could not see A.W.’s face while she testified, which he claims violated his Sixth 3 Amendment right to confront an accuser. We disagree.
1. Background
Shortly after A.W. took the stand to testify on the first day of trial, defense counsel
asked for a sidebar. During the sidebar, defense counsel told the trial court, “I can’t see
her [A.W.] at all and I’m not sure exactly whether I move or what.” The court told
defense counsel, “you can move over so you can see her.” “We can move him over a
little further and you can move over a little bit . . . to the left. I’m not gonna put her in a
position where she gets stared down. I’m gonna keep an eye on people in the audience.
But I think he needs to at least be able to see her.” Defense counsel and the court then
briefly discussed counsel’s concern that there were police officers “with their vests on” in
3 At oral argument, defendant’s counsel did not challenge our tentative opinion on this issue.
5 the courtroom. The court explained that he could see everyone in the courtroom and that
everyone had behaved appropriately.
Defense counsel replied, “And if you can just say something. I’ll push my client
over so – just so I can see her.” The trial court then asked a courtroom employee to ask
A.W. to “slide over a couple of inches” so that defense counsel “can see her.” The bailiff
explained, “I think I can just move this monitor here,” to which the court said, “[Defense
counsel] can’t see. I want [defense counsel] to be able to see.” Defense counsel thanked
the court and the trial proceeded with A.W. testifying for the rest of the day without any
objection about defendant or his counsel not being able to see A.W.
The next day of trial began with A.W. testifying. Before she started testifying,
however, defense counsel objected that he could not see her when she previously
testified. Counsel explained: “[A.W.] sort of sat behind a screen that is up on the witness
stand. And it was – I assume it was done so that she wouldn’t have to look at my client
or see my client. And I approached a couple times unfortunately in front of the jury. But
I did approach a couple times just to try to address it because I couldn’t see her on several
occasions. [¶] I would ask that we take the computer down so that my client can see her
and she can see my client. I do believe under the Sixth Amendment he has a right to see
her. I would certainly ask to see her. I would note for the record that we had a couple
sessions on Tuesday I believe. And I didn’t see her. So I physically got up and sat in the
District Attorney’s seat for several portions of that witness’ testimony sitting in between
Detective Hernandez and the jury just so that I could see her. [¶] I don’t believe that
6 there have been any allegations of threats that -- I think the one issue on the bus that we
had had to do with a different witness which is [redacted] I believe. And so that would
be the request, that we remove that and that both my client and myself be able to see her.”
The trial court ruled as follows: “So it is the Court’s ruling that counsel will be
able to see her. We will fix the screen so counsel can see her from where you are. I
don’t necessarily -- for the witness’ comfort, given the nature of the offenses alleged,
given the nature of the defendant’s demeanor, her ability to testify and provide
information and provide candid information the Court thinks was helped by her not
looking directly at the defendant. There are many situations in which witnesses can be
screened off entirely or testify via remote television. The defendant’s right to confront
and cross-examine witnesses is for counsel. So if counsel can see her, she does not have
to look at the defendant given what the Court has seen as far as her testimony, how she
started off speaking very softly and hesitantly. And once she realized that -- once she got
more comfortable, she became firmer in her testimony. We were better able to hear her.
[¶] So I think I am going to just keep it the same way for now because I think it is
important that we all hear what she has to say. So we will make sure that counsel can see
her. And that will be the Court’s ruling.” A.W. then testified.
2. Forfeiture
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . .” This provision
7 “guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the
trier of fact.” (Coy v. Iowa (1988) 487 U.S. 1012, 1016.) This guarantee, however, is not
absolute and may yield to important policy concerns so long as the witness’s reliability
remains assured. (See People v. Arredondo (2019) 8 Cal.5th 694, 700-701, citing
Maryland v. Craig (1990) 497 U.S. 836, 840 (Craig).) A defendant may also forfeit the
constitutional right to confront a witness by failing to object. (People v. Arredondo,
supra, at p. 710 [“We have applied this rule numerous times to find forfeiture of a
constitutional right of confrontation claim.”].)
Although defense counsel stated that he could not see A.W.’s face and objected on
that basis before A.W. began testifying on the first day of trial, defense counsel never
objected during the first day of A.W.’s testimony on the ground that defendant could not
see A.W.’s face. It was not until the beginning of A.W.’s second day of testifying that
defense counsel objected on the ground that defendant could not see A.W.’s face. By
failing to object until the second day of A.W.’s testimony, defendant forfeited his
objection that his inability to see A.W.’s face while she testified on the first day of trial
violated the Confrontation Clause.
Defendant claims his failure to object should be excused because any objection
would have been futile given that the trial court overruled his objection before A.W.
testified on the second day of trial. We disagree. Our Supreme Court has “never
expanded the futility exception to encompass a situation where, as here, the defendant
made a belated objection after forgoing multiple earlier opportunities to object.” (People
8 v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 336.) Like that court, “we decline to do so here.”
(Ibid.)
Regardless, we cannot determine on this record whether an objection before A.W.
began testifying on the first day of trial would have been futile. The trial court overruled
defendant’s objection before she began testifying on the second day of trial in part
because of what the court observed during A.W.’s testimony on the first day of trial.
According to the trial court, A.W. “started off speaking very softly and hesitantly,” but
“became firmer in her testimony” as she grew “more comfortable” on the stand. In the
court’s view, this was because A.W. realized she did not have to look at defendant as she
testified. It is thus unclear how the trial court would have ruled on defendant’s
Confrontation Clause challenge had he objected when A.W. first began testifying on the
first day of trial.
Defendant alternatively argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
object on the first day of A.W.’s testimony. We reject the ineffective assistance of
counsel (IAC) claim.
To prevail on an IAC claim, the defendant must show that (1) counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing
professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial, i.e., there is
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s failings, the result would have been more
favorable to the defendant. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694;
9 accord, People v. Johnson (2015) 60 Cal.4th 966, 979-980; see People v. Mbaabu (2013)
213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1148.)
“[R]arely will an appellate record establish ineffective assistance of counsel.”
(People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 122.) If the record sheds no light on
counsel’s actions, the claim must be rejected unless no satisfactory explanation exists or
counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one. (People v. Mendoza
Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266.) We will not find ineffective assistance of counsel
“unless there could be no conceivable reasonable for counsel’s acts or omissions.”
(People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 926.)
We can think of several conceivable reasons why defense counsel may not have
objected that defendant could not see A.W.’s when she testified. For one, defendant and
defense counsel may not have been initially concerned that defendant could not see A.W.
so long as defense counsel could see her. It is conceivable that defendant decided that he
wanted to be able to see A.W. after she testified for a day. Defense counsel also may
have thought it was in defendant’s best interest that he not look at A.W. because he may
have done so in an intimidating manner. As the trial court noted, the court would not
“put [A.W.] in a position where she gets stared down” and overruled defense counsel’s
objection to the computer monitor covering her face in part because of “defendant’s
demeanor.” Because defense counsel may have reasonably decided not to object that
defendant could not see A.W.’s face on the first day of trial, we reject defendant’s IAC
claim.
10 3. A.W.’s First Day of Testimony
A.W.’s testimony on the first day of trial was sufficient for the jury to find
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on counts 1 through 7. A.W. testified that
defendant trafficked her from Las Vegas to San Bernardino in order to pimp her. She
explained that defendant repeatedly threatened her, used violence, assaulted her with his
gun, and detained her against her will, all to coerce her into prostituting herself for him.
A.W. also testified that T.W. prostituted herself and gave her earnings to defendant.
A.W.’s testimony on the first day of trial thus allowed the jury to find defendant
guilty of trafficking A.W. to commit another crime (prostitution) (§§ 236.1, subd. (b),
266h; count 1), pimping A.W. (§ 266h; count 2), pandering by procuring for prostitution
A.W. and T.W. (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1); counts 3 & 7); kidnapping A.W. (§ 207, subd. (a);
count 4), assaulting A.W. with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 5), and making
criminal threats against A.W. (§ 422, subd. (a); count 6). We therefore need not address
whether the trial court properly overruled defendant’s Confrontation Clause objection
immediately before A.W. began testifying on the second day of trial that he could not see
her face.
B. Sentence Imposed on Count 9
Defendant contends, and the People concede, that the trial court erroneously
imposed a 16-year term on count 9, pandering by procuring for prostitution a minor over
16 years old. (§ 266, subd. (b)(1).) We agree.
11 The trial court imposed the 16-year term by imposing an upper term of eight years
for count 9, doubled for defendant’s strike prior. The upper term for the offense,
however, is six years. (§ 266, subd. (b)(1).) The upper term thus should have been six
years, doubled for the prior strike, for a total of 12 years. We therefore modify the
sentence on count 9 from a 16-year to a 12-year term. (See People v. Guillen (1994) 25
Cal.App.4th 756, 764.)
C. Senate Bill No. 567
The trial court imposed upper term sentences on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 9. The
court also imposed the upper term on the firearm enhancements in connection with
counts 1, 5, and 6, and imposed the upper term on the great-bodily-injury enhancement in
connection with count 1. Defendant contends the matter must be remanded for
resentencing under recently enacted legislation so that the trial court can decide whether
to impose these upper terms. We agree.
The court explained that it intended to impose the maximum term possible given
the nature of defendant’s offenses, the number of victims, and the length of time that he
abused them. The court found that there were no mitigating factors, while there were
three aggravating factors: (1) the victims were “particularly vulnerable,” (2) the manner
defendant carried out the offenses indicated “criminal sophistication and
professionalism,” and (3) he engaged in violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to
society. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), (a)(8), (b)(1).)
12 “While this appeal was pending, Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
amended section 1170, subdivision (b), making the middle term of imprisonment the
presumptive sentence. (§ 1170, subd. (b)(2); Stats. 2021, ch. 731, § 1, effective Jan. 1,
2022.) A trial court may impose an upper term sentence only where there are aggravating
circumstances in the crime and the defendant has either stipulated to the facts underlying
those circumstances or they have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt. (§ 1170,
subd. (b)(1)-(2).)” (People v. Flores (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 495, 500, fn. omitted, review
denied June 15, 2022 (Flores).)
The parties agree, as do we, that these ameliorative amendments apply
retroactively to defendant’s non-final case. (Flores, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 500;
People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 459, 2022, review denied July 20, 2022 (Lopez);
People v. Zabelle (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1098 (Zabelle).) The parties disagree, however,
on the appropriate remedy. Defendant argues the case must be remanded so that the trial
court may exercise its discretion under amended section 1170, subdivision (b) and decide
whether to impose the middle or upper terms on the six counts at issue. The People argue
any error was harmless because any reasonable jury would have found at least one of the
aggravating circumstances true beyond a reasonable doubt and thus the trial court
properly imposed the upper terms.
Courts are split on how to assess harmlessness in these circumstances. (See
Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 497, fn. 11.) In Flores, Division Three of the First
District held that remand for resentencing under amended section 1170, subdivision (b)
13 was unnecessary because any error in the trial court’s imposing an upper term (instead of
the presumptive middle term required by Senate Bill No. 567) was harmless. (Flores,
supra, at p. 500.) The Flores court held reviewing courts may affirm an upper term, even
if the defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 567, so long as
a reasonable jury would have found true “‘at least a single aggravating circumstance’”
justifying an upper term true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Ibid., quoting People v.
Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 839 (Sandoval).) The Flores court affirmed the
defendant’s upper term because a reasonable jury would have found true beyond a
reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances that he had “numerous convictions” and
committed the underlying offense while on probation. (Id. at p. 501.)
Our colleagues in Division One recently disagreed with Flores. (Lopez, supra, 78
Cal.App.5th at p. 467, fn. 11.) The Lopez court held that assessing harmlessness in the
context of retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 567 requires a two-step analysis.
(Ibid.) The first question we ask is whether we “can conclude beyond reasonable doubt
that a jury would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt all of the aggravating
factors on which the trial court relied in exercising its discretion to select the upper term.”
(Ibid.) The Lopez court reasoned that section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) “requires that
every factor on which a court intends to rely in imposing an upper term, with the
14 exception of factors related to a defendant’s prior conviction(s), have been admitted by 4 the defendant or proven to a jury.” (Id. at p. 466.)
If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then the trial court’s “reliance on
factors not found true by a jury in selecting the upper term” was harmless. (Lopez, supra,
78 Cal.Ap.5th at p. 467, fn. 11.) But if the answer to that question is “no,” then the
reviewing court must ask if it is reasonably probable that the trial court still would have
imposed the upper term “if it had recognized that it could permissibly rely on only a
single one of the aggravating factors, a few of the aggravating factors, or none of the
aggravating factors, rather than all of the factors on which it previously relied.” (Ibid.) If
it is not reasonably probable that the trial court would have imposed an upper term, then
the reviewing court must remand the case for resentencing under amended section 1170,
subdivision (b). (Ibid.)
In fashioning its test for harmlessness, the Flores court relied entirely on our
Supreme Court’s opinion in Sandoval. (See Flores, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 467.)
But Sandoval was based on former section 1170, subdivision (b)’s language mandating
4 Amended section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) provides in full: “The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. Except where evidence supporting an aggravating circumstance is admissible to prove or defend against the charged offense or enhancement at trial, or it is otherwise authorized by law, upon request of a defendant, trial on the circumstances in aggravation alleged in the indictment or information shall be bifurcated from the trial of charges and enhancements. The jury shall not be informed of the bifurcated allegations until there has been a conviction of a felony offense.
15 sentencing courts to impose the middle term “unless there are circumstances in
aggravation.” Sandoval held that a sentencing court’s finding of aggravating
circumstances justifying an upper term was harmless if a jury would have found a single
aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th
at p. 839.)
But, as amended by Senate Bill No. 567, section 1170, subdivision (b) now
provides that the sentencing court may impose an upper term “only when there are
circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of
imprisonment exceeding the middle term.” (§ 1170, subd. (b)(2).) “As a result of this
change, it may no longer be true that ‘the existence of a single aggravating circumstance
is legally sufficient to make the defendant eligible for the upper term.’” (Flores, supra,
75 Cal.App.5th at p. 501 [conc. Statement of J. Liu].) Rather, an upper term is
appropriate only if the aggravating circumstances “‘justify the imposition’ of that term
under all of the circumstances, which may include evidence both in aggravation and in
mitigation.” (Ibid.)
The Lopez court correctly identified this change in the law by concluding that
amended section 1170, subdivision (b) now “requires that every factor on which a court
intends to rely in imposing an upper term, with the exception of factors related to a
defendant’s prior conviction(s), have been admitted by the defendant or proven to a jury.”
(Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 466, italics added.) The Flores court, on the other
hand, relied on case law interpreting an outdated version of the statute, which allowed the
16 sentencing court to impose an upper term if the jury would have found at least one
aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt.
But under amended section 1170, subdivision (b), the sentencing court may
impose the upper term only if all of the circumstances, including aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, “justify the imposition” of that term. A single aggravating
circumstance thus may be insufficient for a sentencing court to conclude that the upper
term is justified under amended section 1170, subdivision (b). We therefore respectfully 5 disagree with Flores. (See People v. Wandrey (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 962, 982
(Wandrey) [disagreeing with Flores and following Lopez]; Zabelle, supra, 80
Cal.App.5th at pp. 1113-1114 [agreeing with Lopez but “fram[ing] the issue somewhat
differently” while noting “[b]oth our approach and the Lopez court’s approach are the
same in terms of outcomes”]; People v. Dunn (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 394 (Dunn)
[disagreeing with Flores], review granted Oct. 12, 2022, S275655.)
Wandrey, citing Lopez, stated the appropriate test slightly differently. (Wandrey,
supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 982.) The reviewing court asks whether it was “certain the
jury would have found beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating circumstances relied
on by the court and whether the trial court would have exercised its discretion in the same
way if it had been aware of the statutory presumption in favor of the middle term.”
5 We also note that a different panel from the Flores court later declined to follow Flores and followed Lopez. (People v. Ross (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1346, 1354.)
17 In Zabelle, the Third District explained it “agree[d] in principle” with Lopez but
had a “very minor” “quibble” with its test: “[S]imilar to Lopez, we also apply a two-step
process when evaluating for prejudice in these circumstances, with the first step 6 7 evaluating for Chapman error[ ] . . . and the second step evaluating for Watson[ ] error.
But unlike the Lopez court, we find a reviewing court must always evaluate for Watson
error before concluding that the trial court’s error was harmless.” (Zabelle, supra, 80
Cal.App.5th at p. 1113.)
The Fifth District agreed with Lopez’s two-step analysis, but disagreed on the
appropriate standard of review at the first step. (Dunn, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 408.)
The court was “unconvinced that the Chapman standard of harmless error—applicable to
errors implicating federal constitutional rights—must be applied to all aggravating
circumstances in the Lopez court’s first step.” (Ibid.) The court noted that only one
aggravating circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under Sandoval and
that Lopez relied on only section 1170, subdivision (b) as authority for its holding that
“Chapman applies to every factor.” (Ibid.)
Dunn thus found that “Flores sets too low a standard for harmlessness and Lopez
too high” and thus adopted “a version of the standard articulated in Lopez, modified to
6 See Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman) [an error of federal law require reversal unless it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt].) 7 See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson) [errors of state law require reversal only if it is “reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error”].)
18 incorporate Watson in the first step.” (Dunn, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 409.) Dunn
articulated the appropriate test as follows: “The reviewing court determines (1)(a)
beyond a reasonable doubt whether the jury would have found one aggravating
circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt and (1)(b) whether there is a reasonable
probability that the jury would have found any remaining aggravating circumstance(s)
true beyond a reasonable doubt. If all aggravating circumstances relied upon by the trial
court would have been proved to the respective standards, any error was harmless. If not,
the reviewing court moves to the second step of Lopez, (2) whether there is a reasonable
probability that the trial court would have imposed a sentence other than the upper term
in light of the aggravating circumstances provable from the record as determined in the
prior steps. If the answer is no, the error was harmless. If the answer is yes, the
reviewing court vacates the sentence and remands for resentencing consistent with
section 1170, subdivision (b).” (Dunn, supra, at pp. 409-410, fn. omitted.)
In our view, the problem with these cases is that they do not properly account for
our Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1358, 1382
(Gutierrez), a case defendant’s counsel relied on heavily at oral argument. Although
Lopez cited and purportedly applied Gutierrez, we conclude below that it did not do so
properly. (See Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 467.) The other cases did not cite
Gutierrez.
In Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460 (Miller), the United States Supreme
Court held that mandatory life without parole (LWOP) sentences for minors violate the
19 Eighth Amendment. In Gutierrez, our Supreme Court considered whether a judicially
created presumption that juvenile offenders convicted of special circumstance murder
should receive LWOP sentences under section 190.5, subdivision (b), remained valid in
light of Miller. (Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1360.) Before Gutierrez, the
presumption created a preference for an LWOP sentence, thereby limiting the trial court’s
discretion to impose a more lenient sentence. (Id. at pp. 1381-1381.)
Our Supreme Court concluded there was no such presumption in section 190.5,
subdivision (b), but found that the statute remained constitutional after Miller.
(Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 1360-1361.) The court went on to explain that
sentencing courts had discretion to impose an LWOP sentence on juvenile offenders
convicted of special circumstances murder under section 190.5, “with no presumption in
favor” of an LWOP sentence, but that the court had to consider various circumstances
outlined in Miller. (Ibid.)
The court then considered the proper disposition given that this change in the law
applied retroactively and the two defendants in Gutierrez had been sentenced when the
purported presumption in section 190.5, subdivision (b) was the “prevailing authority.”
(Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1390.) The Gutierrez court explained that sentencing
decisions must be made with the sentencing court’s “‘informed discretion,’” and a court
that is unaware of the scope of its discretion cannot exercise “‘informed discretion.’”
(Ibid.) Our Supreme Court held that remand is appropriate “[i]n such circumstances”
unless the record “‘clearly indicate[s]’” that the sentencing court would have imposed the
20 same sentence even if it knew of and exercised its informed discretion. (Ibid.) The
record did not clearly indicate that the sentencing courts “would have imposed the same
sentence had they been aware of the full scope of their discretion” and knew that there
was no presumption in favor of an LWOP sentence in section 190.5, subdivision (b).
(Ibid.) As a result, the Gutierrez court remanded for resentencing. (Ibid.)
S.B. 567’s amendments to section 1170 present a situation analogous to the one in
Gutierrez. As amended, section 1170, subdivision (b)(1) and (b)(2) expressly provide a
presumption in favor of a middle term. Like the presumption at issue in Gutierrez, these
statutory amendments circumscribe the sentencing court’s discretion. They mandate a
middle term unless certain conditions apply, just like the presumption disapproved of by
Gutierrez limited the sentencing court’s discretion to impose a sentence other than an
LWOP term.
The various tests articulated above do not properly consider Gutierrez. Flores
says any S.B. 567 error is harmless if the jury would have found at least one aggravating
circumstance that the trial court relied on to impose an upper term true beyond a
reasonable doubt. While rejecting Flores, the first step of Lopez’s two-part test says any
S.B. 567 error is harmless if a jury would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt all
of the aggravating circumstances the trial court relied on in imposing the upper term.
Dunn modified this first step and says any S.B. 567 error is harmless if the jury would
have found one aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt and it is
reasonably probable the jury would have found any other aggravating circumstances true.
21 In short, all three tests allow reviewing courts to find S.B. 567 error harmless only
if the trial court could have lawfully imposed an upper term based on what a jury might
have found true. But because amended section 1170, subdivision (b) affected the scope
of a sentencing court’s discretion, reviewing courts must determine whether the trial
court would have imposed the same sentence in light of its narrowed discretion imposed
by the new statute. (See Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1391.)
Lopez seemingly recognized this principle when discussing and applying the
second part of its test. (Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 467.) The court remanded for
resentencing because the record did not “clearly indicate that the trial court would have
exercised its discretion to impose an upper term based on an aggravating factor relating to
Lopez’s prior convictions.” (Id. at p. 468.) But that is a different, more demanding
standard than the second part of Lopez’s test, which asks only whether it is reasonably
probable that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence “if it had recognized
that it could permissibly rely on only a single one of the aggravating factors, a few of the
aggravating factors, or none of the aggravating factors, rather than all of the factors on
which it previously relied.” (Id. at p. 467, fn. 11.)
In short, reviewing the trial court’s sentencing decisions for prejudice under
Watson at Lopez’s step two does not answer whether the trial court would have imposed
an upper term under amended section 1170, subdivision (b). This cannot be answered by
determining whether the trial court’s reliance on one or more aggravating circumstances
was harmless. Whether a jury would have found true all of the aggravated circumstances
22 the trial court relied on true beyond a reasonable doubt (Lopez step one) does not answer
whether the trial court would have imposed an upper term under amended section 1170,
subdivision (b)’s new presumption in favor of a middle term. It answers only whether the
sentence is constitutionally valid. (See Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 838-839; see
also People v. Black (2007) 41 Cal.4th 799, 812.) Nor does asking at Lopez step two
“whether we can be assured that the trial court would have exercised its discretion to
impose the upper term based on a single permissible aggravating factor, or even two or
three permissible aggravating factors . . . the court originally relied on both permissible
and impermissible factors in selecting the upper term.” (Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at
p. 467.)
As Gutierrez teaches, we may find that a sentencing court would have imposed an
upper term under amended section 1170, subdivision (b)’s presumption for the middle
term (and thus affirm the sentence without remanding) only if the record clearly indicates
that the court would have imposed an upper term under its new, circumscribed discretion.
Lopez thus did not ask the right question when, applying Gutierrez, it concluded
reviewing courts must determine whether the record clearly indicates that the trial court
would have imposed an upper term based on one or more aggravating factors that a jury
would have found true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at pp.
467-468.)
Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the “informed discretion”
of the trial court. This requires a sentencing court to be aware of the full scope of its
23 discretion. A change in a mandatory sentencing presumption alters the sentencing court’s
discretion. For instance, the Gutierrez decision expanded a trial court’s discretion to
impose a sentence other than LWOP on certain juvenile offenders by eliminating a
judicially imposed presumption that those offenders should receive an LWOP term.
Amended section 1170, subdivision (b) restricts a trial court’s discretion to impose an
upper term in a way that did not exist under the former version of the statute. The
imposition of an upper term under former section 1170, subdivision (b) thus does not
constitute an exercise of the trial court’s informed discretion under amended section
1170, subdivision (b). Gutierrez thus directs us to remand for resentencing unless the
record clearly indicates that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence under
the new law.
To summarize, there are two questions the reviewing court must ask to determine
whether remanding for resentencing under amended section 1170, subdivision (b) is
appropriate. First, we must ask whether a defendant could still lawfully be sentenced to
an upper term under federal and state law. This requires us to conclude that the jury
would have found at least one aggravating circumstance true beyond a reasonable doubt.
(See Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at pp. 838-839; Zabelle, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at pp.
1111-1112.) If the answer to that question is no, then the sentence is invalid and must be
vacated, and the matter remanded for resentencing. (See Sandoval, supra, at pp. 838-
839; Zabelle, supra, at pp. 1111-1112.) But if the answer to that question is yes, we ask
whether the trial court would impose the same sentence in its informed discretion under
24 amended section 1170, subdivision (b). To answer that question, we must apply
Gutierrez and ask whether the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have
imposed the same sentence under the new law.
Applying this two-part test here, we conclude remand is appropriate. The trial
court found there were no mitigating circumstances while finding there were three
aggravating circumstances: (1) the victims were “particularly vulnerable,” (2) the manner
defendant carried out the offenses indicated “criminal sophistication and
professionalism,” and (3) he engaged in violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to
society. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), (a)(8), (b)(1).) We cannot find beyond a
reasonable doubt that a jury would have found any of these three true beyond a
reasonable doubt.
“‘[A] “particularly vulnerable” victim is one who is vulnerable “in a special or
unusual degree, to an extent greater than in other cases.”’” (People v. Esquibel (2008)
166 Cal.App.4th 539, 558.) “‘Vulnerability means defenseless, unguarded, unprotected,
accessible, assailable, one who is susceptible to the defendant’s criminal act.’” (People v.
DeHoyos (2013) 57 Cal.4th 79, 154.) A victim is considered particularly vulnerable
“where the age or physical characteristics of the victim, or the circumstances under which
the crime is committed, make the defendant’s act especially contemptible.” (People v.
Bloom (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 310, 321-322.)
“In the jargon of football players,” an attack on a particularly vulnerable victim is
“a cheap shot.” (People v. Smith (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 433, 436.) Examples of
25 “particularly vulnerable victims” thus include individuals attacked while asleep (People
v. Loudermilk (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 996) or unconscious (People v. Ramirez (2006) 143
Cal.App.4th 1512), elderly victims who live alone attacked at home (People v. Alvarado
(2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 178), and victims of gross vehicular manslaughter (People v.
Nicolas (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1165).
Although the People highlight evidence suggesting that A.W., T.W., and Jane Doe
were particularly vulnerable victims, there was also evidence suggesting that they were
not. After meeting defendant, A.W. engaged in prostitution for another pimp and for
herself. Jane Doe denied that she worked for any pimp, including defendant. T.W.
similarly testified that she engaged in prostitution for herself only, not defendant, and
denied that she ever gave him money she earned from her sex work. From this evidence,
a reasonable jury could conceivably conclude that A.W., T.W., and Jane Doe were not
unusually defenseless against defendant, but rather voluntarily engaged in prostitution.
As the trial court put it, the victims were “streetwise.” It is thus reasonably probable that
a jury might not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that they were particularly
vulnerable victims. (See Sandoval, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 841 [remanding in part
because the record did not “reflect such a clear-cut instance of victim vulnerability that
we confidently can conclude the jury would have made the same findings . . . .”];
Wandrey, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at pp. 982-983 [remanding in part because jury could
find that sexually abused 12-year-old girl was not particularly vulnerable].)
26 We are unaware of any published case that considers the aggravated circumstance
that a defendant’s conduct exhibited “criminal sophistication and professionalism.”
Although some evidence suggested that defendant acted “professionally” in that he
organized and directed the victims’ schedules and daily quotas, nothing about his conduct
was particularly sophisticated. Defendant committed his offenses almost entirely by use
of force and violence, not sophisticated methods. As defense counsel argued at
sentencing, this was a relatively routine pimping case. A jury therefore could rationally
find that defendant’s conduct did not exhibit criminal sophistication or professionalism.
We are likewise unaware of any published case that meaningfully considers the
aggravated circumstance of a defendant engaged in “violent conduct that indicated a
serious danger to society.” This uncertainty is compounded by the fact that what
constitutes “violent conduct that indicated a serious danger to society” is vague and
subjective. (See People v. Sherman (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 402 [finding the circumstance
requires a “subjective, qualitative determination[]”].) Our Supreme Court has observed
that “to the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests
on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to
conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would
have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.” (Sandoval, supra, 41
Cal.4th at p. 840.) Given the ambiguity inherent in this aggravated circumstance, we
cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found it true beyond
a reasonable doubt.
27 Because we are uncertain that a jury would have found any of the aggravated
circumstances the trial court relied on true beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant’s
sentence is invalid under amended section 1170, subdivision (b). (See Sandoval, supra,
41 Cal.4th at p. 838; Zabelle, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 1111.) As a result, we need not
turn to the second part of our test, but we elect to do so.
The court prefaced its ruling by stating that it intended to sentence defendant “to
the maximum time permitted by law” and had “no problem” with doing so. The court
described defendant as “a rather vicious predator who was proud of his profession,” who
showed an “absolute disregard for the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the
girls involved.” In the court’s view, defendant treated the victims “as nothing more than
objects to be used for his financial enrichment and his own pleasure.” The court was thus
“shocked” at defendant’s domination and “utter control” over the victims, as well as his
treating them “without any care . . . other than with what they could do for him” for an
extended period of time. His behavior, according to the trial court, was “beyond the
bounds of a decent society” and showed that he was a “serious danger to society.”
The court also found that there were no factors in mitigation, particularly given
that there was “nothing that indicates” that defendant “had remorse for what happened to
these girls,” he tried to “get them to recant their testimony,” and he “did everything he
could to try to get out of trouble.” The trial court thus found that the upper terms were
“appropriate.”
28 Although the trial court prefaced its ruling by stating that it intended to sentence
defendant “to the maximum time permitted by law” and had “no problem” with doing so,
nothing in the trial court’s statements clearly indicates that it would have imposed an
upper term under amended section 1170, subdivision (b), even if a jury found all three
aggravated circumstances true. The trial court imposed an upper term based on three
aggravated circumstances, but it did not expressly give any particular weight to any of
them. And although the trial court expressed serious disdain for defendant’s conduct, we
cannot say for certain that the court would have imposed the same sentence under
amended section 1170, subdivision (b)’s presumption for a middle term. “Some degree
of speculation would necessarily be required for us to conclude . . . that the trial court
would have exercised its sentencing discretion in the same way if it had taken the
statutory presumption in favor of the middle term into account.” (Wandrey, supra, 80
Cal.App.5th at p. 983.) Because the record does not clearly indicate that the trial court
would have imposed the same sentence under amended section 1170, subdivision, we
conclude remand for resentencing under that statute is appropriate.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The sentence on count 9 is ordered reduced to a 12-year term. As modified, the
judgment of conviction is affirmed. Defendant’s sentence is vacated and the matter for
resentencing consistent with amended section 1170, subdivision (b). After resentencing
defendant, the clerk of the superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of
29 judgment and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
CODRINGTON J.
I concur:
MILLER Acting P. J.
30 [People v. Lewis, E076449]
RAPHAEL, J., Concurring.
I respectfully concur separately because I would follow People v. Lopez (2022) 78
Cal.App.5th 459 (Lopez) in remanding for resentencing. I join the opinion and its result
except for the portions of section III.C that apply analysis deviating from Lopez.
When Brandon Edward Lewis was sentenced, it was within the trial court’s
“sound discretion” to choose a sentence among the lower, middle, and upper term that
“best serves the interests of justice.” (Penal Code § 1170, former subd. (b).) Also, a
defendant had no right to a jury determination of the facts that the court relied on in
choosing the upper term. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 844, 847.) The
court sentenced Lewis to the upper terms for some of his crimes after finding three
aggravating factors listed in California Rules of Court, rule 4.421.
Later, Senate Bill No. 567, effective January 1, 2022, made the middle-term
sentence presumptive and required jury findings (or stipulated facts) for each aggravating
factor that a trial court relies on to select an upper-term sentence. (Penal Code § 1170,
subd. (b)(2).) A court may still find the fact of a prior conviction without a jury. (Ibid.)
The change in law applies retroactively, so we must determine whether it was
harmless for the court to apply the upper term without jury findings on the underlying
facts and without treating the middle-term as presumptive. Lopez correctly holds that we
must first decide whether we can “conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would
have found true beyond a reasonable doubt every factor on which the court relied. . . .”
(Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 466.)
1 Lopez’s first step is correct because, now that our state requires a jury finding for
any fact that the trial court relies on to impose an upper-term sentence, the federal
constitutional right to a jury determination attaches to every such finding. (See Patterson
v. New York (1977) 432 U.S. 197, 211, fn.12 [federal jury right “has always been
dependent on how a State defines the offense that is charged in any given case”]; People
v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 333 [federal jury right on each element charged].) As the
law, applied retroactively, makes it constitutional error for the trial court to have relied on
facts not found by a jury, Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 requires that we
determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether each error was harmless.
The majority correctly holds that we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt
that any of the three factors would be found by a jury. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 25-28.)
We thus reverse, as we cannot be sufficiently certain that the jury will provide any factual
basis to select an upper term. That ends this matter here. The People may prove
aggravating factors to a jury on remand. If they succeed, the trial court may consider
whether to base upper-term sentences on the factors that the jury found.
We need not discuss Lopez’s second step. The second step addresses what the
trial court would have done, not what a jury would find. We would need to reach the
second step if we concluded that a jury would have found any of the aggravating factors.
Then, we could uphold the sentence if we could find that “the trial court would
nevertheless have exercised its discretion to select the upper term if it had recognized that
it could permissibly rely on” only the factors that we could conclude would have been
found by a jury, with the middle term presumptive. (See Lopez, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at
2 p. 467, fn.11). Consistent with how we review most non-constitutional errors, Lopez
applies to this determination the familiar People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836
(Watson) standard that asks whether the result more favorable to the defendant is
“reasonably probable.” (Lopez, at pp. 467 & 467 fn.11.)
The majority opinion applies a different two-part test than Lopez applies. It
couches the second step in a manner guided by People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th
1354 (Gutierrez) and asks “whether the record clearly indicates that the trial court would
have imposed the same sentence under the new law.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 25.)
The “clear indication” standard applies when a trial court makes a sentencing
decision without “awareness of the full scope of discretion” that it has. (Gutierrez, supra,
58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391.) That standard would apply when a retroactive change in law
bestows new sentencing discretion on a trial court, such as the discretion to strike an
enhancement. (See People v. Almanza (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1104, 1110.) In that
situation, the appellate court may have no relevant record to review, as the trial court
would not yet have exercised its discretion. The clear indication standard consequently
requires an affirmance to be grounded in record evidence, rather than in speculation.
In contrast, Senate Bill No. 567 applies retroactively to trial courts that did
exercise discretion. Because of the change of law, these trial courts may have relied to
some extent on an improper factor. When a defendant claims that a trial court relied on
inapplicable factors in support of a sentencing choice, the “reasonable probability”
standard applies. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354-355; see People v.
McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 426 [clear indication standard inapplicable to
3 deciding whether a court “is likely to repeat a choice it already made”].) Like most
harmlessness inquiries, this review of a court ruling is inherently an analysis of what the
record indicates. Lopez correctly applies the Watson “reasonable probability” standard to
its second-step determination, though we need not reach that step here because reversal is
required after the first step.
RAPHAEL
J.