Opinion
E069732
01-30-2020
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Tajay Marcell JOHNSON et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Kevin Tyrone Hairston. Suzanne G. Wrubel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Tajay Marcell Johnson. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Lynn G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Certified for Partial Publication.
We therefore grant the request in part and order that this opinion be certified for partial publication pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(b). The opinion filed in this matter on January 30, 2020, is therefore certified for publication with the exception of sections B through E of the Discussion.
Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Kevin Tyrone Hairston.
Suzanne G. Wrubel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Tajay Marcell Johnson.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Lynn G. McGinnis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MENETREZ, J.
A jury convicted Tajay Marcell Johnson and Kevin Tyrone Hairston of one count of second degree robbery ( Pen. Code, § 211 ; count 1), one count of carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a); count 2), one count of kidnapping to commit robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1); count 3), and one count of kidnapping for the purpose of carjacking (§ 209.5, subd. (a); count 4). They were both sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for each of the kidnapping offenses. The sentences for robbery and carjacking were stayed under section 654. We agree with defendants and the People that carjacking is a necessarily included lesser offense of kidnapping for the purpose of carjacking, and we therefore reverse defendants' convictions for carjacking. We further agree with both parties that the abstracts of judgment must be amended and that defendants' sentences need to be clarified, so we remand for that purpose.
All further unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Johnson was 17 years old when he committed the offenses. Charges were originally filed against him in criminal court. However, after voters enacted Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57) during the pendency of the criminal proceeding, Johnson's case was transferred to juvenile court to determine whether he was fit to proceed as a juvenile or should be tried as an adult. At the beginning of the juvenile fitness hearing, Johnson's attorney stipulated, in Johnson's presence, that the case should proceed in criminal court based on the probation officer's report and recommendation. On appeal, Johnson argues that the statutory right to a juvenile fitness hearing could not be waived by his attorney on his behalf but rather required a personal waiver from Johnson himself. We disagree.
Defendants also challenge the imposition of various fines and fees as due process violations under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 268 ( Dueñas ). We conclude that some of those claims were forfeited, and as to the remainder any error was harmless. We strike the $40 crime prevention fines as unauthorized, however, and order the trial court to impose the statutorily mandated $10 fine instead. We otherwise affirm.
BACKGROUND
Late in the evening of August 28, 2014, the victim Christopher C. dropped off a friend at the friend's apartment complex in Victorville, California. In the parking lot, he was approached by Hairston, Johnson, and a third person named Tommy. Hairston asked Christopher C. if he had change for a $100 bill, which Christopher C. did not. Christopher C. walked away from his car for some time and returned to discover that his cell phone was missing from the car. When Christopher C. asked the three individuals if they had taken it, Hairston demanded that Christopher C. give Hairston the keys to the car. Christopher C. refused. Hairston pulled out a gun, put it near Christopher C.'s head, and forced Christopher C. into the back seat of the car after Christopher C. gave Hairston the keys.
All three individuals got into the car with Christopher C. and drove away. Tommy sat in the back seat with Christopher C. and held the gun to Christopher C.'s head. All three individuals warned Christopher C. to keep his head down and shut up. The group picked up Johnson's girlfriend, X.B. (a minor), at another apartment building. At their next stop at a gas station, Hairston tased Christopher C. several times on his face, shoulder, and upper thigh after Christopher C. lied about not having any money available on his debit card. After leaving the gas station, they headed toward Las Vegas, Nevada. They eventually stopped at a casino in Las Vegas. Everyone in the vehicle went into the casino. Hairston and Tommy told Christopher C. that if he made any moves they would shoot him in the casino and that they were not concerned about getting caught.
When the group left the casino a short time later, everyone got back into Christopher C.'s car and headed to a gas station. Upon arrival, everyone exited the vehicle but Christopher C. and Tommy. Christopher C. noticed that the gun did not have a magazine in it, jumped out of the car, and ran toward the nearest hotel or casino. Christopher C. found a security guard. He later gave a statement to Las Vegas law enforcement and to local law enforcement in Victorville.
On August 29, 2014, a deputy with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department located Christopher C.'s car parked in a motel parking lot. The deputy saw someone exit a motel room, get into the car, and drive away. Johnson and X.B. were found in the motel room and arrested. The car was recovered, and a BB gun that looked like a semiautomatic handgun, a taser gun, a knife, and various other items were found in the trunk. Hairston was arrested less than two weeks later, and Christopher C. identified him in a photographic lineup.
Hairston filed his opening brief months before Johnson did. Nevertheless, Hairston prospectively joined any arguments made by Johnson in his brief. The People contend that such a generalized joinder is not permitted. We need not address the issue because the only argument that Johnson makes that is different from the arguments already made by Hairston concerns Johnson's status as a minor. That argument is not relevant to Hairston, who was an adult when the offenses were committed.
A. Johnson's Stipulation to Proceed as an Adult
Johnson contends that the juvenile court prejudicially erred by failing to obtain a personal waiver from him of his right to a juvenile fitness hearing. We disagree.
1. Proposition 57 and the Juvenile Fitness Hearing Requirement
Proposition 57 was enacted in November 2016 and eliminated a prosecutor's ability to file charges directly in criminal court against anyone who was 14 years or older at the time of the alleged offense. ( People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 410 P.3d 22 ( Lara ).) Proposition 57 mandates that prosecutors must instead commence the action in the juvenile court, which then decides "whether the matter should remain in juvenile court or be transferred to adult court." ( Ibid. ; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a).) Proposition 57 applies retroactively to pending criminal proceedings. ( Lara, supra , at p. 309, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 410 P.3d 22.)
Pursuant to section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the juvenile court must hold a hearing and determine whether a minor who is 16 years or older and alleged to have committed a felony is a "fit and proper subject to be dealt with" by the juvenile court or should be transferred to criminal court. ( Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 606, 602, 707, subd. (a)(1) & (3).) That determination must be based on five enumerated statutory factors and a report submitted by a probation officer documenting "the behavioral patterns and social history of the minor." ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(1) & (3).)
2. Johnson's Juvenile Fitness Hearing
In January 2017, the superior court suspended criminal proceedings and certified Johnson to the juvenile court to hold a hearing pursuant to section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to determine whether he should be prosecuted as an adult or was fit to be treated as a juvenile. At the time of the hearing, Johnson was 19 years old. The probation department prepared a report for the hearing and recommended that Johnson was unsuitable for juvenile court based on the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by Johnson and the circumstances and the gravity of the offenses alleged.
At the beginning of the juvenile fitness hearing, Johnson's attorney informed the court: "Actually, we're going to not have a hearing, we're going to stipulate on the report. [¶] I would indicate to the court that I've had a doctor appointed to interview [Johnson], she did interview him and gives me no information that would facilitate him staying in the juvenile system." The court sought clarification and asked Johnson's attorney if the attorney was in fact stipulating that Johnson was "transferable to adult court." The attorney responded that he was so stipulating, and the prosecutor confirmed. Johnson's attorney acknowledged that the stipulation was based on the probation officer's report. The juvenile court accepted the stipulation. In so doing, the juvenile court noted that it had "reviewed the transfer report" and was basing its decision to accept the stipulation on that report too. Johnson's attorney acknowledged that the stipulation "ha[d] been discussed with the family, and [that Johnson] wishe[d] to proceed in adult court." Johnson, his mother, and his brother were present in court.
3. Personal Waiver of Right to a Juvenile Fitness Hearing Not Required
When an accused is represented by counsel, as Johnson was, " ‘the accused surrenders all but a handful of "fundamental" personal rights to counsel's complete control of defense strategies and tactics.’ " ( In re Horton (1991) 54 Cal.3d 82, 95, 284 Cal.Rptr. 305, 813 P.2d 1335 ( Horton ).) "The reason is that when, as here, the accused exercises his or her constitutional right to representation by professional counsel, ‘ "it is counsel, not defendant, who is in charge of the case." ’ " ( People v. Hinton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 839, 873-874, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 ( Hinton ), quoting Horton, supra , at p. 95, 284 Cal.Rptr. 305, 813 P.2d 1335.) No clear set of criteria exists for deciding whether a right is so fundamental in nature as to require a personal waiver by the accused. ( People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 936, 248 Cal.Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917, overruled on another ground in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 409, 25 P.3d 618.) However, the rights for which a personal waiver is required comprise a "narrow exception" to the general rule. ( Hinton, supra , at p. 874, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981.)
Decisions falling within this "narrow exception" include (1) whether to plead guilty, (2) whether to waive the right to trial by jury, (3) whether to waive the right to counsel, (4) whether to waive the right to be free from self-incrimination, and (5) whether to present a defense at the guilt phase of a capital case when the court is aware of an express conflict between the defendant and the attorney. ( Hinton, supra , 37 Cal.4th at p. 874, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 ; Horton, supra , 54 Cal.3d at p. 95, 284 Cal.Rptr. 305, 813 P.2d 1335 [citing cases].) By contrast, some of the rights that do not require a personal waiver from the accused include (1) the right to testify ( People v. Bradford (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1005, 1052-1053, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544 ); (2) in a capital case based on a prior-murder-conviction special-circumstance allegation, the right to have that allegation determined in a separate proceeding following a finding of first degree murder ( Hinton , at p. 873, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 ); (3) the right to be present at pretrial conferences ( People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1196, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969 ); (4) in a capital case, the right to having a regularly appointed judge (as opposed to a temporary judge) preside over the trial ( Horton , at pp. 97-98, 284 Cal.Rptr. 305, 813 P.2d 1335 ); and (5) the right to a jury trial in a proceeding to determine competence to stand trial, "even over the defendant's objection" ( People v. Masterson (1994) 8 Cal.4th 965, 974, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 679, 884 P.2d 136 ).
No case law exists establishing that the right to a juvenile fitness hearing falls within the narrow category of fundamental rights for which a personal waiver by an accused is required. Johnson relies on Rucker v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 197, 200-201, 141 Cal.Rptr. 900 ( Rucker ) as support for his claim that such a waiver is required by an accused who has reached adulthood. Rucker is inapposite. The issue there was whether an adult who was alleged to have committed the offense while a juvenile could personally "waive the benefits of juvenile law and demand that [s]he be dealt with according to the law of the land." ( Id. at pp. 200-201, 141 Cal.Rptr. 900.) The accused moved for a finding of unfitness before the probation officer had prepared a report, and the accused demanded that she be treated as an adult. The People did not oppose the motion. ( Id. at p. 199, 141 Cal.Rptr. 900.) The juvenile court denied the motion, concluding that a minor lacked the authority to move for a declaration of unfitness. ( Id. at p. 200, 141 Cal.Rptr. 900.) The appellate court reversed, concluding that an adult "may not be tried as a juvenile over [her] objection," regardless of the apparent benefits of being treated as a juvenile. ( Id. at p. 202, 141 Cal.Rptr. 900.) In concluding that the accused's waiver was valid, the court noted that "[t]he only factual issue for determination in petitioner's fitness hearing was whether petitioner knowingly, intelligently, and advisedly waived her rights to the benefits of juvenile process," which the record indicated had happened. ( Id. at p. 203, 141 Cal.Rptr. 900.)
Rucker, supra , 75 Cal.App.3d 197, 141 Cal.Rptr. 900 therefore stands for the proposition that an adult who is alleged to have committed an offense as a juvenile may waive the right to proceed in juvenile court. The validity of the waiver itself was at issue in Rucker , not the form that the waiver must take or from whom the waiver must be obtained. Because the accused's waiver was personal, Rucker analyzed whether that waiver was knowing and intelligent after the accused was given a proper advisement of rights. Rucker said nothing about whether a personal waiver was required. "It is axiomatic, of course, that a decision does not stand for a proposition not considered by the court." ( People v. Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1071, 255 Cal.Rptr. 352, 767 P.2d 619.)
Johnson does not cite any other authority concerning when or how a juvenile may waive the right to proceed in juvenile court. He nevertheless urges that the right to a juvenile fitness hearing implicates a defendant's " ‘core autonomy interests’ " that require a personal waiver because of the drastic difference in penal consequences between the treatment of a juvenile and an adult who have committed the same crime. There is no question that "[t]he possibility of being treated as a juvenile in juvenile court—where rehabilitation is the goal—rather than being tried and sentenced as an adult can result in dramatically different and more lenient treatment." ( Lara, supra , 4 Cal.5th at p. 303, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 410 P.3d 22.) However, the gravity of the potential consequences that might result from the waiver of a right is not determinative of whether the waiver must be personal. ( Hinton, supra , 37 Cal.4th at pp. 873-874, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 [counsel can waive a capital defendant's right to a separate hearing on the truth of a prior-murder special-circumstance allegation despite the fact that introduction of the inflammatory evidence could affect the finding of guilt and expose the defendant to a death sentence].) Johnson cites no authority holding that the exposure to potentially significant consequences in waiving a right dictates that the right must be personally waived.
Johnson relies on People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 859, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 143, 340 P.3d 371 ( Trujillo ) for the proposition that an express waiver by a defendant is required if a constitutional right or " ‘core autonomy interests’ " is at stake. Trujillo is not helpful. Trujillo described the situations in which a personal waiver is required of the accused as involving "core autonomy interests." ( Ibid. ) The only cases it cited as examples involved constitutional rights, such as "the constitutional rights relinquished by a plea of guilty," "the right to counsel," and "the right to appeal." ( Ibid. ) Trujillo did not explain what was meant by "core autonomy interests." The Court did conclude, however, that "no comparably significant right" was implicated by the waiver of the statutory right to a court hearing on the defendant's ability to pay probation supervision and presentence investigation fees. ( Ibid. ) The right to a juvenile fitness hearing is conferred by statute and thus is more like the statutory right at issue in Trujillo than the constitutionally derived rights that Trujillo described as requiring a waiver.
Relying on People v. Johnson (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1050, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, 51 P.3d 913 ( Johnson ), Johnson contends that statutory rights also can be significant enough to require a personal waiver. Johnson too is not helpful. In Johnson , the Court concluded that "a defendant may expressly waive entitlement to section 2900.5 credits against an ultimate jail or prison sentence for past and future days in custody." ( Johnson, supra , at pp. 1054-1055, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, 51 P.3d 913.) The Court further stated: "As with the waiver of any significant right by a criminal defendant, a defendant's waiver of entitlement to section 2900.5 custody credits must, of course, be knowing and intelligent." ( Id. at p. 1055, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, 51 P.3d 913.) The issue in Johnson was whether the statutory right could be waived, not by whom it could be waived.
Johnson infers from the knowing and intelligent waiver requirement in Johnson, supra , 28 Cal.4th at page 1055, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, 51 P.3d 913, that a defendant's waiver to a significant statutory right—such as to a juvenile fitness hearing, he contends—should be personal. We disagree. The requirement that a waiver be knowing and intelligent is not synonymous with the requirement that the waiver be made personally by the accused. The trial judge "may safely assume that [an accused], who is ably represented" and who waives the right to a juvenile fitness hearing is doing so "with the advice and under the direction of competent trial counsel." ( People v. Bradford, supra , 14 Cal.4th at p. 1053, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 225, 929 P.2d 544 [constitutional right to testify does not require a personal waiver].) "If that assumption is incorrect, defendant's remedy is not a personal waiver in open court, but a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." ( Ibid. )
The statutory right to a juvenile fitness hearing does not qualify as the type of right that cannot be waived by counsel. Unlike the fundamental matters for which counsel cannot waive on behalf of his or her client, this right is "merely statutory, not constitutional." ( Hinton, supra , 37 Cal.4th at p. 874, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981 ; People v. Masterson, supra , 8 Cal.4th at pp. 969, 972, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 679, 884 P.2d 136.) The decision to waive the right to a juvenile fitness hearing for an accused who has reached adulthood is a tactical decision that counsel can make on behalf of his or her client. ( Hinton , at p. 874, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 149, 126 P.3d 981.)
For all of these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not err by failing to secure an express personal waiver of the right to a juvenile fitness hearing from Johnson. B.-E.
See footnote *, ante .
--------
DISPOSITION
We reverse the convictions for carjacking (count 2) for Hairston and Johnson. For both defendants, the trial court is directed to: (1) strike the $40 crime prevention fines under section 1202.5, subdivision (a) and to impose a new fine under that statute of $10 for each defendant, and (2) strike the $280 court operations and facilities fees (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1); Gov. Code, § 70373 ) and to impose a new fee of $210 for each defendant. The trial court is directed to correct Johnson's abstract of judgment to reflect that: (1) the sentences of life with the possibility of parole were imposed for kidnapping for the purpose of robbery (count 3) and kidnapping for the purpose of carjacking (count 4), and (2) the sentence for robbery (count 1) is three years. For Hairston, the trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment and the minute order from the sentencing hearing to delete the statement that the sentences for counts 3 and 4 were imposed consecutively. For both defendants, the trial court is further ordered to: (1) clarify whether the sentences of life with the possibility of parole imposed for counts 3 and 4 were intended to run concurrently or whether the sentence for count 4 was intended to be stayed pursuant to section 654, and (2) forward certified copies of the amended abstracts of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgments are otherwise affirmed.
We concur:
RAMIREZ, P. J.
McKINSTER, J.