Filed 3/10/21 P. v. Sloop CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE , Plaintiff and Respondent ,

v.
JAMES SLOOP , Defendant and Appellant

. H0 47503 ( Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 18CR001912 )

A jury found appellant James Sloop guilty of falsely imprisoning his girlfriend by
violence or menace , inflicting corporal injury on her, being a felon in possession of a firearm, twice dissuad ing his girlfriend from testifying against him, and several
misdemeanor violat ions of protective ord ers that prohibited him from contact ing his girlfriend and spouse

. On appeal, Sloop contends the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct in closing argument and the trial court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 850 concerning expert testimony on intimate partner violence

. Further, r egarding his sentence, Sloop claims a one

- year prior prison term enhancement must be struck in light
of Senate Bill No. 136 ( 2019

- 2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136) and that the trial court
failed to knowingly exercise its discretion to impose concurrent sentences on the2

convictions for dissuading a witness

. The Attorney General agrees with Sloop on his two sentencing claims. For the reasons explained below, we reverse the judgment and remand the matter for resentencing in light of Senate Bill 136 and so that the trial court may exercise its sentencing discretion on the two convictions for dissuading a witness. We reject Sloop ’s
other claims of error. 1

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Procedural Background On January 14, 2019, the Monterey County District Attorney filed a second amended information (information) charging Sloop with kidnap p ing “ Jane Doe ” 2 (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)) 3 ; count 1) , inflicting corporal injury upon a cohabitant , Jane Doe (§ 273.5, subd. (a) ; count 2 ) , possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1) ; count 3 ) , three counts of dissuading a witness , Jane Doe, from testifying (§ 136.1,
subd. (a)(1) ; counts 4

– 6 ) , and five misdemeanor counts of contempt of court for violati ng a protective court order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1) ; counts 7

– 11 ). 4
In connection with count 1, the information alleged Sloop had previously b een convicted of a violent felony. (§ 667, subd. (a).) 5 T he information also alleged Sloop

1 In addition to the claims raised in this appeal, Sloop’ s appellate counsel has asserted four claims for relief in a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus ( No. H048299). This court ordered that the petition would be considered with this appeal, and
w e have disposed of the petition by separate order filed this day in case No. H048299

.

2 We refer to this victim as Jane Doe or Doe. (See Cal

. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)( 4 ) .)

3 U nspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 4 Counts 7 through 11 relate to violations that occurred between February 23, 2018, and April 5, 2018, and involved either Jane Doe or Sloop’s spouse, who was referred to at trial as “Jane Doe 2.” We refer to Sloop’s spouse as “Jane Doe 2” or “Doe 2.” (Se e Cal

. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)( 4 ) .)

5 The information , apparently in error, asserted this allegation arose under section 667.5, subdivision ( a ), rather than section 667, subdivision (a). The parties and the trial court appear to have proceeded unde r the assumption that the allegation fell under section 667, and neither party has raised any issue on appeal with respect to the information.3

had suffered two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, 1170.12) (“prior strike”) and had
served multiple prior prison terms for felony convictions (§ 667.5, subd. ( b ) ) (“prior prison term enhancement”). The prior prison terms resulted from Sloop’s previous
conviction s for robbery (§ 212.5 ) , kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), and possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia in a detention facility (§ 4573.6). On January 28, 2019, a jury found Sloop guilty as charged on counts 2 through 5 and 7 through 11. On count 1, the jury found Sloop not guilty of kidnapping but guilty of the lesser included offense of false imprisonment by violence or menace (§§ 236, 237)

. T he jury also found Sloop not guilty on cou nt 6

. Sloop waived jury trial on the allegations in the information concerning his prior convictions , and the trial court found
all the allegations true. On October 10, 2019, the trial court struck one of the two prior strike s and
sentenced Sloop to stat e prison for a total term of 17 years and eight months , comprised
of six years on count 2, plus consecutive terms of one year and four months on count 1, one year and four months on count 3, four years on count 4, four years on count 5, and

one year for one of the prior prison term enhancement s

. The court stayed the other prior prison term enhancements and struck the five

- year prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd

. (a) ) pursuant to its authority under section 1385

. 6
B. Evidence Presen ted at Trial Sloop and Jane Doe dated for about two years before February 2018, and Doe was
in love with Sloop

. 7 In the early morning hours of February 23, Sloop and Doe were at

6 Although the sentencing minute order states that the trial court imposed concurrent one

- year jail terms for the misdemeanor convictions (counts 7

– 11), those sentences were not stated by the trial court on the record at Sloop’s sentencing hearing. At Sloo p’s resentencing on remand, the trial court should impose sentence s on the misdemeanor convictions.

7 Unless otherwise indicated, all dates occurred in 2018.4

Doe’s father’s house in Monterey. There , Sloop got into an argument with Doe’s cousin. Soon after, Doe and Sloop left the residence in Sloop’s car

. Regarding what occurred
inside the house and after Doe and Sloop left, Doe gave one account a day later to a Monterey County Sheriff ’s Office detective , Aly Najem , and a diff er ent account almost a year later when she testified at Sloop’s trial

. Detective Najem testified that a round noon on February 23, he attempted to stop a
BMW being driven without a front license plate. Najem could not see who was driving the car, but it tu rned out to be Jane Doe driving Sloop’s car

. Doe sped away when Najem turned on his patrol car’s overhead lights. After a brief pursuit, the BMW crashed into a
Caltrans truck , and the BMW’s airbag deployed

. Doe got out of the car and immediately collapsed. She had a red mark on the bridge of her nose and appeared to be under the influence of an opiate

. Doe told Najem that she had used heroin and methamphetamine. Doe was transported to a hospital and booked into the county jail later that afternoon.
Detective Najem searched the BMW and found , among other items , a loaded gun under the left side of the driver’s seat, a hypodermic syringe ( apparently containing
heroin ) in a driver’s door compartment, other drug paraphernalia , and women’ s clothing in the passenger compartment and trunk

. Sloop’s fingerprints were not located on the
gun , and DNA found on the gun did not match Sloop ’s DNA

. Around noon on February 24 , D etective Najem interviewed Jane Doe at the county jail about the preceding day’s events

. Doe said she fled from Najem because she was afraid of being arrested for outstanding warrants. When Najem initially asked Doe about the gun, Doe twice failed to respond and looked away. She also said she did n o t know anything ab out the gun. When shown a picture of the gun and a sked if she had

seen Sloop with it, Doe nodded her head, which Najem took as an affirmation that she
had

. When asked about her relationship with Sloop, Doe said she was in love with him,
but he had some “ problems” and what he had done to her was not okay. Doe also said5

other domestic violence had occurred during her relationship with Sloop , but the latest
incident was the worst.
Detective Najem asked Doe what happened between her and Sloop on February
23 . Doe initially refused to answer but then talked about the incident

. Doe recounted that Sloop got into an argument with her cousin. Sloop pointed the gun at her cousin ; this
action frightened Doe and caused her to run out of the house to Sloop’s car. Shortly
thereafter , Sloop exited the house, got in the car, and started driving away. Doe told Sloop she did not want to go with him and wanted to get out of the car. Sloop said Doe could get out but he would not stop the car ; instead, h e accelerated. Doe opened her door
but decided not to get out of the moving car because she feared injury. The pair drove to
a 7

- Eleven about two miles away from the house. Sloop went inside the store while Doe
waited in the car. 8 Doe told Najem that she stayed in the car because Sloop had calmed
down. After t hey left 7

- Eleven, Sloop drove to a n a rea that had little traffic at that time
of day

. Sloop accused Doe of infidelity, called her a stupid bitch, and hit her hard approximately three or four ti mes. Doe covered her face to protect herself. During the interview at the jail , D etective Najem did not see the red mark he had
observed on Jane Doe’s nose the previous day

. H owever, Najem saw some swelling and a bruise on the left side of Doe’s face. Doe said th at injury was caused by Sloop hitting her, not by her face striking the car’s airbag during the collision with the truck

. A district attorney’s investigator testified that a bout one hour before Jane Doe fled
from D etective Najem on February 23, Doe sent a text message to a county jail inmate named Cameron Ferguson. The message included the following: “ ‘ Now, yeah, yesterday was F

- U

- K

- E

- D up. Remember what Joe did to Maria acros s from airport and she was acting all scarey ? Yeah. Well, Jimmy did that to me. But he was tripping hard

8 The store’s surveillance video showed that Sloop and Doe were there around 2:30 a.m. , and Sloo p bought a cigarette lighter.6

and went Tudy and Sam style on me. Yeah. Not cool. ’ ” ( S pelling and grammatical errors in original.)
Jane Doe testified that she had pleaded gui lty to felony evading an officer and was granted probation. Doe said that on February 23 , she was living at her father ’s house , and Sloop stayed there on some nights

. In the e arly morning hours of February 23 , she, Sloop, her cousin, and two or three other people whom she did not know were at the
house

. They were using drugs, including heroin and “ crystal. ” Doe’s father was asleep. Sloop and Doe’s cousin got into a loud argument in Doe’s bedroom. Doe was afraid the arguing would wake her fath er. Doe asked Sloop and her cousin to stop or be quiet , and
Doe exited the house. Doe did not see any guns and never saw Sloop with a gun. Doe got scared when h er father came out of the house very upset. She jumped in to Sloop ’s

car. Sloop also got in the car. Sloop asked Doe to go back in side the house to get his laptop, but she said no.
Jane Doe was upset with Sloop because she thought her father would not want them back and they were going to be “ out i n the street. ” After driving away from the
house and stopp ing to talk , Sloop and Doe drove to a 7

- Eleven. On the way, Doe opened
her door to get Sloop ’s attention and express her frustration ; she was “just overreacting” and not trying to get out of the car. After Sloop purchased a lighter and returned to the

car , Doe got out of the car and s moke d a cigarette. 9 Sloop and Doe then drove for a time , parked in a neighborhood around Jacks Peak , and argued. Sloop started driving again, stopped, grabbed Doe’s purse, and threw some of it s contents out the window, causing
Doe to cry. Sloop did not hit Doe at either stop

. In addition, Sloop had n ever hit Doe
before , and there had never been any prior domestic violence between them

. Sloop and Jane Doe eventually returned to her father’s house. Thereafter, Doe left with her belongings in Sloop’s BMW to go to her grandmother’s house. Doe did not

9 The store’s surveillance video, however, showed the BMW leaving the area within seconds after Sloop exited the store.7

know there was a gun in the car when she fled from D etective Najem

. Between the time
of her arrest and her trial testimony, Doe had exc hanged several letters and text messages with Sloop and had video chatted with him two or three times. She also had received
message s from Sloop through her family members. During her direct testimony, Jane Doe answered multiple questions about her

state ments to D etective Najem by s aying that she could not recall whether she actually
had made those statements

. For example, Doe testified that she did not remember telling Najem that (1) she saw Sloop point a gun at her cousin ; (2) she got scared and ran ou tside
when she saw the m fighting ; (3) Sloop accelerated when she opened the car door ; (4) s he was scared of Sloop, did not want to leave the house with him, and tried to get out of the

car ; (5) Sloop hit her hard approximately three or four times and she tried to cover her
face ; (6) Sloop had problems and what he had done was not okay ; and (7) she had see n Sloop with a gun. In addition, Doe testified that she was not sure whether she had told
Detective Najem there had been prior domestic violence inci dents. Doe denied telling Najem that the bruise on the side of her face was caused by being punched.
On cross

- examination, Jane Doe said that w hen D etective Najem interviewed her
he immediately told her that he thought she was a victim. Doe felt that if she was a victim, she might get leniency in her own case , which was the most serious criminal charge she had ever faced

. Doe simply agreed to a lot of what Najem said during the
interview , including whether the gun in the car was Sloop ’s. At the time of the interview,
Doe was still coming down from the drugs she had taken a nd , at trial, she did not have a good recollection of the interview.
Alexandria Tara McCabe (Tara McCabe) testified as an expe rt in the psychology of intimate partner violence. 10 McCabe was unaware of the facts in this case and was

10 McCabe testified about her background and qualifications. This testimony is the subject of Sloop ’ s pe tition for writ of habeas corpus, which we have addressed by separate order this day.8

called to testify general ly about her training and experience working with victims of intimate partner violence

. According to McCabe, under the “Du luth model,” “ [ t ] he cycle of violence” usually starts with a “honeymoon period” when people are getting to know each other. Typically, the abuser want s intimacy and commitment quickly and to control the
activities of the victim. This period is usually fo llowed by a period of tension and then an escalat ion of violence, which may includ e threats of harm to the victim’s family or other
actions to prevent the victim from seeking help . After a violent incident, the abuser typically shows remorse , which is followed by a return to the honeymoon period

. T he cycle then repeats and tends to get shorter and more dangerous

. The abuser often will keep close tabs on the victim’s contacts and activities

. The
abuser may maintain power and control through acts of apparent love or service and promises to marry or further the relationship

. Cultural , religious, familial, e conomic , and
emotional barriers can make it difficult for the victim to leave the relationship.
I t is “very common” for an abuser who is charged with a domestic violence crime to tell his victim about the charges and the possible sentence or other potential ramifications. Providing such information is “a way of making the victim feel guilty” and “ashamed that they came forward ” to report what had happened. According to national statistics, three out of five women will be victimized by domestic violence before the age of 30. Based on McCabe’s experience as a victim advocate, younger people may not “have a point of reference” to know that their experiences are not “how life has to be.”
McCabe described a case from Seattle in which a woman was granted a restraining
order based on death threats

. Thereafter, police seized a gun , but the perpetrator was granted supervised visitation with a child by a civil court. At the next visit, the perpetrator murdered the woman and the child. According to McCabe, it i s hard to predict what will happen in domestic violence situations and “ s ome cases get very lethal9

very quickly.” The presence of weapons increases lethality and the “recidivism rate” for domestic violence abusers “is very high.” Victims of domestic violence sometimes use drugs to “numb[] themselves from
the whole escalation of violen ce.” It is “very common” for victims of domestic violence to not report every incident to the police. A victim may provide information more readily if someone else contacted the police. It is “more common than not” for a victim to make a report and then refuse to cooperate with authorities. A victim may “flip[] on the stand” by not talking about what happened or just denying anything happened

— all of which is part of the violence cycle . “[R]ecanting and minimizing” are “very common” and happened “more o ften than not” in the cases on which McCabe worked. Further, i t is “very common” for victims of trauma to recall only certain details of what happened to
them. McCabe has seen victim s apologize to th e abuser “in almost all of the cases that [she] dealt w ith.” McCabe has also seen victims help the abuser by paying bail, trying to
rescind a no

- contact order, and going back into the abusive relationship.
On cross

- examination, McCabe acknowledged that she testified about “a lot of generalities ” and , given her lack of knowledge regarding this case, she could not provide an opinion about why the people in this case may have behaved as they did. A police officer from the Seaside Police Department testified about an incident on September 8, 2016, involving Slo op and his estranged spouse, Jane Doe 2. Doe 2 reported to police that Sloop had broken into her home. Police officers went to the home and observed a broken window and open doors. The officers found Sloop hiding in the backyard. Sloop told the police that Doe 2 had accused him of cheating, the door locks had been changed, and he broke the window

. The officers served Sloop with a restraining order that Doe 2 had obtained previously. Sloop left, and Doe 2 returned home. While the officers were still at the home, and within 15 to 20 minutes after serving Sloop with the restraining order , Sloop called Doe 2 and “said something to the effect of, ‘I can’t believe you’re doing me like thi s,’ ” “ ‘I’m going to kill you,’ ” and,10

“ ‘ I’m stressing. I’m so sorry. ’ ” In addition to making this call, Sloop had called Doe 2
at least five other times after being served with the restraining order . Subsequently, on September 12, 2016, police offic ers returned to the home and found Sloop hiding inside. The officers arrested Sloop. Regarding the charges for violating protective court orders between Feb ruary through April 2018, the district attorney’s investigator testified that Sloop contacted Jan e Doe 2 from jail over 400 times via tex t message or video call. 11 In addition, Sloop made approximately 123 text, phone, or video contacts with Jane Doe. 12 Regarding the charges that Sloop dissuaded Jane Doe from testifying, a recorded
video call established that on February 27, Sloop asked a person named Robert Manni to
contact Jane Doe and tell her that “ ‘[w]hatever she says is going to’ [] ‘cost [Sloop hi s]
life. ’ ” Within minutes after this video call , Manni talked by video with Jane Doe ( who was in jail ) and then engaged in another video call with Sloop

. Shortly thereafter, Manni

sent a text message to Doe stating: “ ‘ Please understand the life

- threat ening situation that
the man that you say that you love and care for is being put into. James has always been there for you in your times of need. In good times and bad times. He loves you and cares for you the way a man is supposed to care for a woman that he loves. [¶] [] . . . . Now, I don’t want you to feel overwhelmed by what needs to be done. But, in all honestly [ sic ], it may very well feel that way at times. Now the D.A. is threatening James with life in prison. And if the truth doesn’t get brought to light, life is coming over [ sic ] for him.
But his life can be saved , [Jane Doe]. The truth can save James’s life. Just tell the D.A. the truth, [Jane Doe ], please. Please. [¶] In real talk, it’s understood what’s being asked
of you. You’ll have to give up a year of your life. But you’ll be saving the man’s life,

11 Inmates housed in the county jail could phone, text, and video call people on the outside. All communications were recorded and monitored

.

12 In his closing argument, Sloop’s defense counsel conceded the five misdemeanor protective order violations alleg ed in counts 7 through 11.11

who you say you love. You could make it happen , [Jane Doe]. Just tell the truth, that James was asleep and didn’t have anything to do with what happened. Do what yo u know is right in your heart. ’ ” In addition, o n March 2, Sloop sent a text message to an account registered to

“ Jaamine Pruyne

. ” 13 The message read : “ ‘ So ask Spence a ny word on that ask. If you
could call and tell her that I really could get life. They’re charging me with kidnapping,
which carries life. ’ ” Manni respond ed a few hours later asking Sloop to call him. The next day, Sloop sent a nother text message to the Pruyne account stating: “ ‘ Hey, please call girl again and let her know I’m being charged with kidnap. And they put a restraining order for us. Why? And damn it

-- damn. I’ll always love her. And I’ve been good to her for the most part. And I’m sorry for the mistakes I’ve made. But in the
end it w as all love on my part. And I’m sorry. Please don’t allow me to get the rest of my life, because I don’t deserve that. Please. Thank you. Then call me .’ ” Sloop did not testify or present an y witnesses in his defense.
II. DISCUSSION Sloop raises f

our claims of error in this appeal

. Sloop asserts the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct in closing argument. He further argues the trial court erred by instructing the jury with CALCRIM No. 850 concerning expert testimony on intimate partner vio lence . Regarding his sentence, Sloop contends the prior prison term enhancement must be struck in light of Senate Bill 136 . Sloop also asserts on remand the trial court should conduct a full resentencing and should exercise informed discretion on
whether to impose concurrent sentences for counts 4 and 5. We address Sloop’s claims
in turn.

13 Manni used the account of “Jaamine Pruyne” to communicate with Sloop in jail. Manni also used the alias “Spence.”12

A. P rosecutor ial M isconduct in Closing Argument Sloop claims that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by

“ unconstitutionally compar[ing] the defense to Donald Trump and his ‘fake news’ rhetoric, while supposedly adopting the Obama mantra

– when they go low, we go high” and “impermissibly vouch[ing] for the integrity of the prosecution team” by saying,

“ ‘We don’t do personal attacks here.’ ” The Attorney General counters that Sloop forfeited his claim by failing to object at trial on the ground s he now asserts on appeal and by not requesting an admoniti on at the time of the alleged misconduct. Further, the Attorney General argues that Sloop’s claim
l acks merit and the prosecutor’s conduct was not prejudicial.

1. Background In his closing argument, defense counsel addressed the prosecutor’s failure to ask Jane Doe questions about her pre

- arrest text message to jail inmate Cameron Ferguson referencing what “ ‘ Jimmy did ’ ” to her

. D efense counsel remarked that the prosecutor “doesn’t care about the truth. She’d rather speculate. It’s better to speculate fo r her.”
The prosecutor objected to this comment and the trial court sustained the objection

. Thereafter, outside the presence of the jury , the trial court admonished defense counsel that “the personal attack on the D.A. was inappropriate.” Defense counsel apologized, acknowledged his comment was inappropriate, and said he removed the comment from his PowerPoint presentation.
D efense counsel further argued to the jury that Jan e Doe had “an incredible motive to lie” when she spoke to D etective Najem and that Najem gave Doe “an out” and “an opportunity” to obtain leniency by telling her she was a victim

. Defense c ounsel asserted that Doe “concoct[ed] a story how these events all transpired.” Counsel questioned
whether Doe “actually sa[id] the things” Detective Najem testified to and argued that the jury could not know exactly what was said because Najem had not recorded the
interview. Further , in respon se to argument by the pro secutor about the consistency13

between the evidence and McCabe ’s expert testimony , defense counsel argued that
McCabe “said whatever the District Attorney’s Office wanted her to say” in an effort to “make their case stronger.” After defense counsel complet ed his closing argument, t he prosecutor began her rebuttal argument by saying, “That was a lot. By my count, I’m a liar. Jane Doe’s a liar.
The Court made [an] impermissible ruling, which is the

-- . ” Defense counsel interrupted the prosecutor saying, “ Objection. I didn’t say that.” The trial court sustained the objection. The prosecutor continued, “The officers in this case lied, the expert who knows nothing about this case was coached and then spoon fed you what we cooked up in
our office. That was a lot. Depending on your political leanings, fake news, or when they go low, we go high

. We don’t do personal attacks here .” ( Italics added. ) Defense
counsel interjected, “ Objection; t hat was a personal attack. ” The trial cour t sustained the objection , and the prosecutor next said, “The evidence in this case is what we’re going to
focus on.”
2. Legal Principles “ ‘As a general rule a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashion

— and on the same ground

— the defendant made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety.’ [Citation.] ‘When attacking the prosecutor’s remarks to the jury, the defendant must show’ that in the context o f the whole argument and the instructions there was ‘ “a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained

- of comments in an improper or erroneous manner.” ’ ” ( People v. Silveria and Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 306.)
“ ‘ “ [A] prosecut or is given wide latitude to vigorously argue his or her case ” ’ [citation] and ‘ “may make ‘ assurances regarding the apparent honesty or reliability of ’ a witness ‘ based on the “ facts of [the] record and the inferences reasonably drawn
therefrom. ” ’ ” ’ ” ( People v. Rodriguez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 474, 480 ( Rodriguez ).)14

“ ‘Improper vouching occurs when the prosecutor either (1) suggests that evidence not available to the jury supports the argument, or (2) invokes his or her personal prestige or depth of exper ience, or the prestige or reputation of the office, in support of the argument.’ [Citation.] Referring to facts not in evidence is ‘clearly’ misconduct ‘because such statements “tend[] to make the prosecutor his own witness

— offering unsworn testimony not subject to cross

- examination.” ’ ” ( Ibid

. ) “ ‘Prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal when it “so infect[s] a trial with unfairness [as to] create a denial of due process. [Citations.] Conduct by a prosecutor
that does not reach that level nevertheless constitutes misconduct under state law, but only if it involves the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the court or jury.” ’ ” ( People v. Peterson (2020) 10 Cal.5th 409, 464.)
Prosecutorial misconduct that violates state la w is harmless unless it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached in the
absence of the error. ( People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1070

– 1071 ; see also People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ( Wa tson ) .) Federal constitutional error is harmless if, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error did not affect the outcome of the trial. ( People v. Cook (2006) 39 Cal.4th 566, 608; see also Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 ( Chapman ) .)

3. Analysis
Sloo p contends the prosecutor committed misconduct because she “ equated
defense counsel and his argument with [ former President Trump ’s ] highly divisive, ‘fake news’ rhetoric. She then compared herself and her office with the Obama era slogan,

‘ When they go low, we go high. ’ Finally, she vouched for herself, her office and her expert witness when she claimed that ‘ [w]e don’t do personal attacks here. ’ ” We begin our analysis of Sloop’s claim by considering whether Sloop adequately preserved his current arg ument that the prosecutor improperly compared the defense to
then

- President Donald Trump . As detailed above , after th e prosecutor uttered her15

statement about not “ ‘ do [ ing ] personal attacks here , ’ ” Sloop’s defense counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor’s statement was a “personal attack.” Defense c ounsel did not complain that the prosecutor’s remark s equated him or the defense with President Trump ’s rhetoric or aligned the prosecutor and the prosecution team with the slogan
articulated by Mic helle Obama. Notwithstanding Sloop’s assertion that the jurors likely had a greater affinity for “the former president [i.e., President Obama] whose popularity seems to grow by the day in blue counties such as Monterey” than for the “divisive president,” it is important to our analysis of forfeiture that the prosecutor never mention ed President Trump or the Obamas by name

. If defense counsel had any concern that the prosecutor’s remark s went beyond

a limited “personal attack” on his advocacy and , instead, conjured a politically charged
and grander equivalence between him self and then

- President Trump

— while aligning the prosecution team with the Obamas

— defense counsel should have articulated that political ly

- based concern as a groun d for his objection. Because counsel did not do so, Sloop’s current claim regarding the alleged political comparison is forfeited. (See People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913, 952 ( Stanley ) [“ ‘a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial mis conduct unless in a timely fashion

— and on the same ground

— the defendant made an assignment of misconduct’ ”] ; People v. Thomas (2012) 54 Cal.4th 908, 938

– 939 ( Thomas )

. ) Similarly, Sloop’s argument that the prosecutor’s comment “ ‘ We don’t do personal attacks here ’ ” amounted to improper vouching i s forfeited because defense
counsel failed to object on that ground. Defense counsel objected by saying “that was a personal attack

. ” Defense counsel’s objection sounded in the prohibition on denigr ating or disparaging opposing counsel, not in vouching. (See People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 82 0 , 832 [“A prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or casts aspersions on defense counsel.”]; People v. Sando val (1992) 4 Cal.4th 155, 184

. ) Accordingly, Sloop’s current claim of improper vouching was not16

preserved for appellate review. (See People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 694 , fn. 26;
see also Stanley , supra , 39 Cal.4th at p. 952 ; Thomas , supra , 54 Cal.4th at pp. 938

– 939.)
Further , we are not persuaded by Sloop’s argument that his failure to request an
admonition should be excused here because “no admonishment would have cured the prejudicial effect of likening defense counsel’s argument to Donald Trump’s frequent claims of ‘fake news.’ ” In our judgment, t he meaning of the prosecutor’s remark is not

as clear as Sloop maintains

. Sloop asserts that the prosecutor equated defense counsel and his argument with former President Trump’s divisive rhetoric and juxtaposed that position against the more accept able and advantageous Obama

- related position espoused by the prosecut ion . T he prosecut or’s remark , however, could reasonably be understood

as characteriz i ng the defense closing argument in a manner that does not connote this alleged Trump

- Obama dichotomy

. In response to Sloop’s assertion, t he Attorney
General argues that “the reference to ‘fake news’ ” more plausibly could be understood “as an assertion that defense counsel’s argument could not be trusted.” And in our view,
the prosecutor’s remark also c ould be interpreted to suggest that it was the defense who
had tried to paint the prosecution as having peddled “ ‘ fake news ’ ” to the jury or , on the flip side of the same coin ( depending on one’s “political leanings” ), the defense had tried

to paint itself as having gone “ ‘ high ’ ” wh ile the prosecution went “ ‘ low

. ’ ”
Given th e apparent ambiguity of the prosecutor’s “ ‘ fake news, ’ ” “ ‘ low ’ ” versus

“ ‘ high ’ ” remark, we conclude that an admonition to disregard the comment would not have been futile or drawn any additional negative attention to it

. S imilarly, defense
counsel should have requested an admonition when he objected to t he prosecutor’s brief

comment about not doing “personal attacks here .” A basic admonition to the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s comments would have cured any harm arising from them and , thus, was necessary to preserve Sloop’s current prosecutorial misconduct arguments for appeal. (See People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 616; People v. Centeno (20 14) 60 Cal.4th 659, 674. )17

Even if we assume arguendo that Sloop’s current challenge to the prosecutor’s

comments was properly preserved for appellate review, Sloop’s arguments lack merit. “A prosecutor is given wide latitude to vigorously argue his or her case and to make fair comment upon the evidence

. ” ( People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 726.) Further,

a “[d]efendant’s challenges to rebuttal [argument] must be evaluated in light of the defense argument to which it replied.” ( People v. Chatman (2 006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 386 .)

“ ‘To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on remarks to the jury, the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained

- of comments in an improper or erroneous manner. [C itations.] In conducting this inquiry, we “do not lightly infer” that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements.’ ” ( People v.
Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1337 .) As explained above , the prosecutor’s rebuttal remark about “ ‘ fake news ’ ” and going “ ‘ low ’ ” and “ ‘ high ’ ” is ambiguous. A lthough somewhat hyperboli c , the remark

was limited , and the prosecutor ultimately followed up by saying, “The evidence in this case is what we’re g oing to focus on

. ” In our judgment, the prosecutor’s remark was an inartful attempt at character izing the defense closing argument but does not amount to
misconduct. (Cf. People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1216

– 1217.) Further, we conclude t here is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood or applied the remark in the way that Sloop claims, i.e., to equate his defense counsel with then

- President Trump
and convict Sloop “ out of anger” rather than based on an impartial evaluation of the
evidence. (See People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 738.) Thus, Sloop has not met
his burden to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct that requires reversal of his
convictions

. In addition , we reject Sloop’s argument that the prosecutor improperly vouched
for the for the integrity of the prosecution team by saying “ ‘ We don’t do personal attacks
here. ’ ” T his brief comment about the prosecution’s repudiation of “ ‘ personal18

attacks ’ ”

— though inappropriate and properly countermanded by the trial court upon the defense objection

— did not suggest the prosecutor had particular “ ‘ personal knowledge
of facts outside the record ’ ” that showed the prosecution witnesses were truthful

. ( Rodriguez , supra , 9 Cal.5th at pp. 480

– 481.) Nor did it “ ‘ invite [] the jury to abdicate its responsibility to independently evaluate for itself ’ ” whether the prosecution witnesses
should be believed

. ( Id

. at pp. 480

– 481

. ) Rather, the prosecutor’s comment more readily
convey ed a denial by the prosecutor of any participation in personalized , disparaging
attack s in court

— by way of comparison to defense counsel and the personal attack he
leveled on the prosecutor’s integrity during the defense closing argument

. Further,
i mmediately after the trial court sustained the defense objection to the prosecutor’s

comment , the prosecutor said “[t]he evidence in this case is what we’re going to focus
on.” Viewing the prosecutor’s comment in context , we conclude that the comment did

not amount to improper vouching based on ex tra

- record evidence. Similarly , although the comment suggested the prosecution was nobler than the defense because it “d[id]n’t do personal attacks here , ” this alleged good behavior did not clearly convey that the prosecution either was aligned with the pr eceding, purportedly
favorable “Obama mantra” or had some special reputation for veracity based on its position more generally

. (See People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 206

– 207

. ) Moreover, as noted above , immediately after making her comment , the prosecutor drew the jury’s focus to the evidence. For these reasons , we do not agree with Sloop that the prosecutor’s comment amounts to improper vouching by invoking prestige or reputation

. In addition, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the prosecutor’s comment repudiating personal attacks as urging them to set aside the evidence and decide the issues of credibility and Sloop’s guilt based on the prosecution’s prestige or reputation

. The jurors were instruct ed here that they “alone [] decide what happened,
based only on the evidence” and they “alone must judge the credibility or believability of
the witnesses

. ” On this record, we conclude Sloop has not demonstrated improper19

vouching that requires reversal

. ( See People v. Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248, 302

– 303;

c f. Rodriguez , supra , 9 Cal.5th at p. 481.)
In sum , we reject Sloop’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct as forfeited and
otherwise conclude it is meritless.
B. CALCRIM No. 850
1. Background
T he trial court instructed the jur ors with CALCRIM No. 850 regarding expert testimony on intimate partner battering and its effects as related to the credibility of a complaining witness. The jury instruction read : “You have heard testimony from Tara McCabe regarding the effect of Intimate Partner Violence. [ ¶ ] Tara McCabe’s testimony about Intimate Partner Violence is not evidence that the defendant committed any of the crimes charged against him. [ ¶ ] You may consider this evidence only in deciding whether or not Jane Doe’s co nduct was not inconsistent with the conduct of someone who has been abused, and in evaluating the believability of her testimony.” At trial, Sloop did not object to this instruction

— which had been requested pretrial by the prosecutor. In addition, Sloop affirmed in the trial court that the instruction was “given with the agreement of the parties.” On appeal, Sloop contends that CALCRIM No. 850 is “ unconstitutionally misleading in two respects .” First, he asserts that in a case “ where the defendant’s gui lt turns on the complaining witness’s credibility, it is impossible to allow the jury to use expert testimony about intimate partner battering ‘ in evaluating the believability of [the complaining witness’s] testimony ’ [citation] , without allowing them to also use it as proof that the victim told the truth. ” Second, he maintains that “ because the instruction’s limiting language refers only to ‘ the crimes charged against ’ the defendant [citation] , the
instruction does not preclude the jury from using intima te partner battering evidence as proof the defendant committed uncharged crimes, from which the jury can then impermissibly infer that the defendant was disposed to commit the charged crimes

. ” In20

addition, Sloop claims that the instruction violated his fe deral and state constitutional rights to due process by reducing the prosecution’s burden of proof and , as to counts 1 and 2, was prejudicial under either Chapman , supra , 386 U.S. 18 ( governing federal constitutional error) or Watson , supra , 46 Cal.2d 818 ( governing state law error)

. The Attorney General counters that Sloop forfeited his claim of error by failing to object to the instruction or request modification of it in accord with his current arguments

. T he Attorney General further contends that Sloop’s claim fails on the merits

. In support of his merits argument, the Attorney General principally relies on two cases that rejected similar challenges to CALCRIM No. 850, People v. Brackins (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 56 ( Brackins ) and People v. Sexton (20 19) 37 Cal.App.5th 457 ( Sexton )

. Finally, the Attorney General asserts that any alleged error in the instruction does not present a federal constitutional issue and is not prejudicial.

2. Analysis We begin by addressing forfeiture. Sloop argues that his f ailure to object “is not fatal” to his appellate argument because the trial court had a duty to correctly instruct the jury on the legal principles relevant to the evidence. Sloop further contends that an objection is not necessary when, as here, the inst ructional error affects a defendant’s substantial rights. Generally , a “ ‘ party may not complain on appeal that an instruction correct in law and responsive to the evidence was too general or incomplete unless the party has requested appropriate clarifyi ng or amplifying language. ’ ” ( People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 724.) Nevertheless , “[w]e may review defendant’s claim of instructional error, even absent objection, to the extent his substantial rights were affected. ” ( People v.
Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 59

– 60; § 1259.) In light of these principles and Sloop’s arguments, w e will consider Sloop’s claim on its merits because “[a]scertaining whether claimed instructional error affected the substantial rights of the defendant necessarily requires an examination of the merits of the claim

— at least to the extent of ascertaining21

whether the asserted error wou ld result in prejudice if error it was .” ( People v. Andersen (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1249.) Turning to the merits of Sloop’s challenge to CALCRIM No. 850, w e review de novo whether an instruction correctly states the law. ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 C al.4th 193, 218.) “In assessing a claim of instructional error, ‘we must view a challenged portion “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record” to determine

“ ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” ’ ” ( People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 831.) Moreover, we presume that jurors are “able to understand and correlate instructions” and “have followed the court’s instructions.” ( P eople v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852.) We are not persuaded by Sloop’s primary argument that CALCRIM No. 850 “effectively permitted the jury to use the expert’s testimony as evidence of [Sloop’s] guilt.” ( Italics and capitalization omitted.) Sloop ’s complaint about CALCRIM No. 850
is similar to one that a different panel of this court rejected in Brackins , supra , 37 Cal.App.5th 56 . In that case, the defendant likewise grounded his challenge to CALCRIM No. 850 on the premise that using expert testi mony to evaluate the alleged abuse victim’s believability amounted to use of that testimony to prove whether the abuse
occurred. ( Brackins , at p. 71.) T his court explained that while expert testimony may not be used “to directly determine whether the abuse occurred,” “it may be used indirectly to assist the jury in evaluating whether the alleged victim’s statements are believable.” 14

14 This court also referenced Evidence Code section 1107, subdivision (a), which states: “ ‘ In a criminal ac tion, expert testimony is admissible by either the prosecution or the defense regarding intimate partner battering and its effects, including the nature and effect of physical, emotional, or mental abuse on the beliefs, perceptions, or behavior of victims of domestic violence, except when offered against a criminal defendant to prove the occurrence of the act or acts of abuse which form the basis of the criminal charge. ’ ” ( Brackins , supra , 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 71; see also People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4t h22

( Ibid .) Th is court further ob served that “[a]ll evidence, including expert testimony, must have some relation to whether the charged offenses occurred or it would be irrelevant and excluded” and then concluded that the “trial court did not err in instructing the jury that it
could use [the] expert testimony to evaluate [the alleged victim’s] ‘believability.’ ” ( Id

. at p. 72.) Similarly , the Fourth D istrict Court of Appeal , Division One, i n Sexton , supra , 37 Cal.App.5th 457, concluded that, when CALCRIM No. 850 is read in context, “[r]easonable jurors would not understand the instruction to mean that if they find the characteristics of intimate partner battering to be satisfied, this indicates that [the victim] was necessarily telling the truth.” ( Sexton , supra , 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 468.) The court in
Sexton emphasized that the instruction “ expressly indicates that the jury is to evaluate the believability of [the victim’s] testimony, not mechanically transfer their evaluation of the expert to [the victim’s] statements .” ( Id . at p. 467 , italics omitted .) Sloop has not presented any arguments that persuade us to reject the reasoning and
conclusions of this court in Brackin s or our sister C ourt of A ppeal in Sexton

. Sloop ’s
reliance on People v. Housley (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 947

— a case involving expert testimony on child abuse accommodation syndrome

— is unavailing. Citing Housley , Sloop a rgue s that CALCRIM No. 850 “never make s the point ” that “ ‘ the expert’s testimony is not intended and should not be used to determine whether the victim’s
molestation claim is true. ’ ” ( Housley , at p. 95 7 .) We do not agree with Sloop’s interpretation of CALCRIM No. 850

. T he instruction here explicitly inform ed the jurors that the expert testimony “is not evidence that [Sloop] committed any of the crimes charged against him.” Further, the instruction did not tell the jurors that they should find

892, 895

– 896 [concluding that expert testimony about the behavior of domestic violence victims is admissible under Evidence Code section 801 , “ because it would assist the trier of fact in evaluating the credibility of the victim ’ s trial testimony and ear lier statements to the police, by providing relevant information about the tendency of victims of domestic violence later to recant or minimize their description of that violence ”].)23

the victim credible based on t he expert’s testimony or suggest that the jurors should eschew their own evaluation of the victim’s truthfulness in light of the expert’s testimony. Rather, the instruction allowed the jurors to use th e expert ’s testimony

— if they credited it

— as one factor in their evaluation of the victim’s credibility. In addition, the jurors received other instructions that reinforced their charge to scrutinize the lay and expert witness testimony, including CALCRIM Nos. 226 (Witnesses) , 301 (Single Witness Testimony), and 332 (Expert Witness Testimony). Further, the instructions in Sloop’s case are distinguishable from those in another

case on which he relies , People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665 . In Sanchez , t he California Supreme Court addressed “the not

- for

- the

- truth limitation ” for case

- specific hearsay evidence relied on by an expert. ( Id . at p. 682.) Our Supreme Court observed,

“ When an expert is not testifying in the form of a proper hypothetical question and no
other evidence of the case

- specific facts presented has or will be admitted, there is no denying that such facts are being considered by the expert, and offered to the jury, as

true. ” ( Id . at p. 684.) Based on this premise, the Supreme Court concluded that the jurors

cou ld not logically follow “ conflicting instructions ” given to them regarding their evaluation of the expert’s testimony

. ( Id . at p. 684.) The conflicting instructions in Sanchez informed the jurors of their duty to decide whether the information relied on by
the expert was true , but also told them that certain case

- specific evidence upon which the expert based his opinion was excluded from their consideration regarding its truth

. ( I bid

. ) In the present case, CALCRIM No. 850 d id not present an analogous conflict regarding juror s’ consideration of the evidence

. Under the instruction, t he jurors could logically evaluate the expert’s general testimony (which did not directly opine on the victim’s credibility) and th e victim’s conduct and believabi lity , in light of the expert’s testimony and the other evidence presented , while also deciding the question of Sloop’s guilt based on the evidence but without considering the expert testimony as is directly24

probative of Sloop ’s alleged criminal actions

. C ALCRIM No. 850 does not suffer the
flaw s that existed in Sanchez because the instruction did not tell the jurors that they had

to m ake a determination whether to credit certain information underlying a witness ’s testimony while at the same time telling the jurors they could not evaluate th at information even though the witness relied on it to provide his or her testimony.
In sum , we conclude t here is no reasonable likelihood that the jur or s applied
CALCRIM No. 850 in such a m anner that the expert’s testimony here was used as direct
evidence of Sloop’s guilt of the charged crime s or to reduce the prosecution’s burden of proof. Sloop’s second argument concerning the uncharged crimes is equally unavailing. Although CALCRIM No. 850 only t old the jurors that the expert testimony was not evidence that Sloop “committed any of the crimes charged against him,” “there is no logical reason for any juror to believe the expert’s testimony would be evidence the
defendant committed the unc harged crimes but not the charged crimes.” ( Sexton , supra , 37 Cal.App.5th at p. 468.) Thus , we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the jurors understood CALCRIM No. 850 to permit them to use the expert ’s testimony as proof that Sloop committed the uncharged crimes and, in turn, th e charged crimes

. For these reasons , we reject Sloop’s claim of error regarding CALCRIM No. 850.
C. Senate Bill 136 and the Prior Prison Term Enhancement Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill 136 amended s ection 667.5, subdivision (b), to limit prior prison term enhancements to only prior prison terms that were served for sexually violent offenses as defined by Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b). (§ 667.5, subd. (b); Stats. 2019, c h. 590, § 1 ; People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337, 34 1.) Sloop and the Attorney General agree that the prior prison term underlying the

one

- year prior prison term enhancement imposed at Sloop’s sentencing w as not served25

for a sexually violent offens e , (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) as do we

. 15 The parties also agree, as do we, that the changes effected by Senate Bill 136 apply retroactively to cases in which the judgment is not yet final. ( People v. Winn (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 872.) Thus , in accord with the Attorney General’s recommendation , we reverse the trial court’s true findings on all the prior prison term enhancements alleged in the information . (See People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 682 ( Jennings ). )
Further , the trial cou rt here did not impose the maximum possible sentence on Sloop . Therefore, in accord with the parties’ arguments, we conclude that remand is appropriate so the trial court can exercise its discretion to reassess Sloop ’s entire sentence since the one

- year p rior prison term enhancement is no longer authorized

. (See Jennings , supra , 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 682; see also People v. Navarro (2007) 40 Cal.4th 668, 681 ; People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893.) In addition, we note the Attorney General’s
concessi on that the trial court on remand may impose any lawful sentence “so long as the aggregate sentence does not exceed 17 years 8 months. ” (See People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1258

– 1259 .)
D. Discretionary Sentencing Decision on Counts 4 and 5 Sloop contends t his case must be remanded to the trial court so it can exercise the
discretion it apparently did no t realize it had under relevant sentencing statutes t o impose concurrent sentences for counts 4 and 5. The Attorney General agrees wit h Sloop. We

concur. (See People v. Woodworth (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1479 [ § 1170.15 “does not require the trial court to impose a consecutive sentence, but instead indicates that if the trial court chooses consecutive sentencing it must impose a fu ll

- term sentence for the witness dissuasion count.”]; see also § § 669 , 1170, 1170.1 .)

15 We note that the record does not reveal specifically which of Sloop’s p rior prison terms was used as the basis for the one

- year enhancement imposed at his sentencing. Nevertheless, none of Sloop’s prior prison term s were for a sexually violent offense

.26

As stated above, we are remanding this case to the trial court for resentencing in light of the changed circumstances effected by Senate Bill 136 . At Sloop’s resentencin g, the trial court should exercise its informed discretion whether to impose concurrent or
consecutive sentences on counts 4 and 5. We do not express any opinion about how the
trial court should exercise its discretion. 16
III. DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing with directions to strike the one

- year enhancement previously imposed under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b ) , and exercise its discretion whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences on counts 4 and 5 . Sloop ’s conviction s are otherwise affirmed

.

16 As described above, the trial court did not orally pronounce sentence s on the misdemeanor convictions (counts 7

– 11) at Sloop’s original sentencing proceeding. (See f n. 6 , ante .) At Sloop’s resentencing, the trial court should impose sentence s on each of the five misdemeanor convictions.______________________________________ D anner , J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________ G reenwood , P .J.

____________________________________ G rover , J.

H047503 People v. Sloop