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.

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!