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

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