Court Opinion

ID: 9401420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 00:05:01.850417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.546543
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/12/23 P. v. Washington 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                         H050045
                                                                    (Santa Clara County
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 Super. Ct. Nos. C1801278, C1903826,
                                                                     C1908543)
           v.

 MARCUS L. WASHINGTON,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         In April 2020, defendant Marcus L. Washington was sentenced to seven years in
prison. Two of these years were due to a sentencing enhancement for committing a
felony while on bail. Washington contends that this “on bail” enhancement should be
vacated because the trial court did not properly consider dismissing it under Penal Code
section 1385. (Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The
Attorney General argues that Washington forfeited this objection by not properly raising
it in the trial court. We agree and, in any event, conclude that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by imposing the “on bail” enhancement. We therefore affirm the judgment.
                                                   I. Background
         Between April and July 2019, Washington was charged in Santa Clara County in
three separate cases. One case involved drug- and vehicular-related offenses, the second
theft- and firearms-related offenses, and the third false impersonation. In connection with
the false impersonation charge, the information alleged that Washington was on bail
when he committed the offense, and it sought an “on bail” sentencing enhancement under
section 12022.1. In August 2019, Washington pleaded no contest to the charges and
admitted the allegations in all three cases, and he was placed on probation for three years.
       While on probation, Washington committed additional offenses in both Stanislaus
and Santa Clara Counties, for which he was sentenced to a total of 11 years and
eight months imprisonment. Afterwards, Washington was transferred to Santa Clara
County for sentencing on his 2019 offenses.
       In his sentencing memorandum Washington argued that in light of the more than
eleven years that he was already serving, the sentences for his 2019 offenses should be
made concurrent to his existing sentences. In so doing, Washington cited
rule 4.423(b)(2) of the California Rules of Court, which recognizes “a mental or physical
condition that significantly reduced culpability for the crime” as a mitigating
circumstance. Washington’s sentencing memorandum did not mention section 1385 or
otherwise ask that the “on bail” enhancement be dismissed.
       On April 22, 2022, Washington appeared for sentencing in Santa Clara County.
His father, mother, and brother spoke on his behalf and asked that he not be imprisoned
for a long time. Arguing that imposing consecutive terms on top of the existing lengthy
sentences already received would be excessive, defense counsel similarly asked the court
“to impose no additional time.”
       During the sentencing hearing, defense counsel also briefly referenced the “on
bail” enhancement, noting that “the Court could stay punishment on the enhancement,
which is an out-on-bail enhancement.” The prosecutor objected, asserting that “I don’t
believe the Court has the authority under [section] 1385 to do so since Defendant has
pled to it.”

                                              2
       The trial court sentenced Washington to seven years of imprisonment to be served
consecutively to his prior sentences. In so doing, the court sentenced Washington two
years and eight months for the false impersonation offense, including a two-year “on
bail” enhancement. In choosing to impose consecutive sentences, the trial court noted
that Washington had committed serious crimes while on probation and was properly
characterized as “a career criminal.” While acknowledging Washington’s drug addiction,
the court concluded that “the law tells me to consider the aggravators and the mitigators
for sentencing, and they balance out.”
       Defendant timely filed an appeal.
                                       II. Discussion
       Washington argues that the judgment should be vacated and this case remanded
for resentencing because the trial court did not consider whether to dismiss the “on bail”
enhancement under section 1385. Under that section, trial courts have the authority to
dismiss a sentencing enhancement when “it is in the furtherance of justice to do so”
(§ 1385, subd. (c)(1)), and in determining whether dismissal would be in the furtherance
of justice trial courts are required to “consider and afford great weight” to evidence of
certain enumerated circumstances (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)). Washington contends that the
trial court failed to consider and give great weight to evidence of two circumstances:
childhood trauma and mental illness. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(D) & (E).) The Attorney
General contends that Washington forfeited this objection by not adequately raising it in
the trial court. We agree.
       Under section 1385, a defendant “ha[s] the right to ‘invite the court to exercise its
power by an application to strike a count or allegation of an accusatory pleading.’ ”
(People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375 (Carmony).) But “any failure on the part
of a defendant to invite the court to dismiss under section 1385 … waives or forfeits his
or her right to raise the issue on appeal.” (Id. at pp. 375-376.)

                                              3
       Washington did not invite trial court to dismiss the “on bail” enhancement under
section 1385. In his sentencing memorandum, Washington asked the trial court not to
impose any new sentence consecutive to his existing sentences, but he did not invoke
section 1385 or otherwise ask the trial court to dismiss the “on bail” enhancement.
Indeed, Washington’s sentencing memorandum does not even mention the enhancement.
At the sentencing hearing, Washington’s counsel did not mention section 1385 either.
Counsel did request that the trial court “stay punishment on the … out-of-bail
enhancement,” which the prosecutor understood as invoking section 1385. But in making
this request Washington’s counsel did not mention Senate Bill No. 81 (Reg. Sess. 2021-
2022), which had recently added subdivision (c) to section 1385 (Stats. 2021, ch. 721,
§ 1), or argue that any of Washington’s offenses were in connection with mental illness
or childhood trauma, as required under the new amendment. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(D)
[“The current offense is connected to mental illness.”]; id., subd. (c)(2)(E) [“The current
offense is connected to prior victimization of childhood trauma.”].) As a consequence,
Washington failed to raise, and therefore forfeited, any argument that the “on bail”
enhancement should be dismissed under section 1385 because his offenses were
connected to mental illness or childhood trauma. (Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th 367 at
pp. 375-376.)
       In any event, even if Washington had properly challenged the “on bail”
enhancement under section 1385, the trial court’s decision to impose punishment for the
enhancement did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Section 1385 authorizes trial
courts to strike enhancements if “it is in the furtherance of justice to do so.” (§ 1385,
subd. (c)(1).) In sentencing Washington, the trial court found the opposite: despite
considering Washington’s arguments about his youth and drug use, the court concluded
that “the aggravators and the mitigators … balance out.”

                                              4
       It is true that section 1385 requires courts to give “great weight” to the presence of
the mitigating circumstances the statute enumerates. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2).) Washington,
however, failed to present evidence of such circumstances. While Washington asserted
in his sentencing memorandum that he was exposed to “significant physical and
emotional abuse in the home,” he presented no evidence that he suffered such abuse,
much less that his offenses were “connected to prior victimization or childhood trauma.”
(§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(E).) Similarly, while Washington asserted that mental illness runs
in his family and that he has had “mental health issues,” he failed to present evidence of
such illness under section 1385. That section defines “mental illness” to mean “a mental
disorder as identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(5).) Washington presented no evidence of such
illness or that his offenses were “connected to mental illness.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(D).)
As a consequence, even assuming that defense counsel adequately raised the issue of the
“on bail” enhancement at sentencing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
imposing punishment for the enhancement.
                                      III. Disposition
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                             5
                                ____________________________
                                BROMBERG, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________
GREENWOOD, P.J.

_____________________________
LIE, J.

People v. Washington
H050045