Court Opinion

ID: 9925685
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 19:02:15.524529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:22.788693
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/22/24 P. v. Barnette CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C096140

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 13F04035)

           v.

 KENNETH BARNETTE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Kenneth Barnette appeals from the trial court’s order declining to strike
two firearm enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.1 He contends the trial
court failed to recognize the scope of its discretion when deciding whether to strike the
enhancements. We will affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
                                      BACKGROUND
       We summarize the facts from our opinions in Barnette’s prior appeals, People v.
Barnette (Nov. 19, 2018, C079639) [nonpub. opn.] (Barnette I) and People v. Barnette
(Nov. 13, 2020, C090884) [nonpub. opn.] (Barnette II). On June 15, 2013, M.C. drove a
white Volkswagen Jetta to a gas station in Sacramento. His uncle, Darryl Hill, was in the
front passenger seat. In the backseat were M.C.’s brother, as well as M.C.’s 18-month-
old daughter. The three men were all in their early 20’s. All gas pumps were being used,
so they waited for a pump to open up. When one did, M.C. drove toward the gas pump
and turned around to back into position at the pump. As he was backing into position, a
silver Infiniti driven by Barnette began backing toward the pump, blocking M.C. from
completing the maneuver into place at the pump. M.C. honked at the car, but neither car
moved. (Barnette I, supra, C079639.)
       “Hill got out of the Jetta, telling the others in the car that he was going to ask the
driver of the silver Infiniti to move, and walked around the back of the Infiniti,
approaching the driver’s side of that car. As Hill approached, he gestured with his hand.
Defendant said, ‘Why are you walking up on my car?’ or ‘Why are you walking up on
me?’ He got out of the Infiniti and fired a handgun at Hill and at the Jetta six times.
Immediately after firing the gun, defendant reentered the Infiniti and drove away.”
(Barnette I, supra, C079639.) Hill suffered five gunshot wounds and died on the scene.
M.C. and his brother were both struck. (Ibid.)
       A jury found Barnette guilty of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), shooting at an occupied
vehicle (§ 246), and attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664). As to the murder and
attempted murder convictions, the jury found true firearm allegations under section
12022.53, subdivision (d). (Barnette I, supra, C079639.) “The trial court sentenced
defendant to a determinate five-year term (the middle term) for shooting at an occupied
vehicle. It also sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term consisting of 25 years to
life for the murder, life with the possibility of parole for attempted murder, and two terms

                                              2
of 25 years to life for the firearm discharge enhancements associated with the murder and
attempted murder. Each of the terms were imposed consecutively, resulting in an
aggregate term of five years, plus 82 years to life.” (Ibid.)
       Barnette appealed and this court remanded the matter for the trial court to consider
whether to strike one or both of the firearm enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620
(Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2018; § 12022.53, subd. (h)). (Barnette I, supra,
C079639.) On remand, the trial court concluded it was “not in the interest of justice to
strike the two firearm enhancements.” (Barnette II, supra, C090884.) Barnette appealed
again, arguing the trial court erred by not considering his postconviction conduct. We
agreed and remanded to permit the trial court to consider this conduct when exercising its
discretion. (Ibid.)
       On remand for the second time, Barnette submitted statements from two witnesses
to the shooting and a defense investigator’s summary report. Barnette argued these
materials were mitigation evidence as they supported the claim that he had acted in self-
defense and did not intend to shoot the individuals in the car.
       On April 22, 2022, the trial court again declined to strike the firearm
enhancements. The trial court stated it had “read and considered the briefs” and found
that “many of the factual assertions in those briefs are not supported by the evidence
produced at trial. There’s absolutely no evidence supporting many of the assertions,
including to the extent that counsel argued the crime was committed in self-defense or in
the heat of passion.” After recounting the facts of the gas station shooting, the trial court
reviewed Barnette’s criminal history, which included two juvenile adjudications for
battery for “punching a janitor in high school and pushing a security officer who was
asking the Defendant to leave” and a prior conviction as an adult for a “battery with
serious bodily injury involving a store clerk in a dispute over money.” As to Barnette’s
postconviction conduct, the trial court considered several physical altercations he had
while in prison. The trial court concluded: “Given the Defendant’s history of violent

                                              3
behavior and his post-conviction record, the Court believes he’ll pose a danger to society
if the firearm enhancements are stricken or modified. [¶] Accordingly, the Court finds
that the general objectives of sentencing are furthered by declining to strike the firearm
enhancements.”
       Barnette filed a timely notice of appeal in April 2022. His opening brief was filed
in May 2023, and this case was fully briefed on November 20, 2023.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Barnette now contends the trial court erred by: (1) not recognizing that section
1385, subdivision (c) creates a rebuttable presumption that enhancements should be
stricken when certain mitigating circumstances are present; and (2) not considering the
witness statements submitted by Barnette. Barnette also argues his counsel was
ineffective by failing to adequately apprise the court of its discretion to consider the
witness statements.
        A.    Rebuttable Presumption
       “In 2021, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) . . .
which amended section 1385 to specify factors that the trial court must consider when
deciding whether to strike enhancements from a defendant’s sentence in the interest of
justice. (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1.)” (People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 674.)
Subdivision (c)(1) of section 1385, as amended, provides: “Notwithstanding any other
law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so,
except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.”
Subdivision (c)(2) of section 1385 provides in relevant part: “In exercising its discretion
under this subdivision, the court shall consider and afford great weight to evidence
offered by the defendant to prove that any of the mitigating circumstances in
subparagraphs (A) to (I) are present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these
circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court
finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety.” The pertinent

                                              4
factor here is contained in subdivision (c)(2)(B) of section 1385: “Multiple
enhancements are alleged in a single case.”2
       Relying on People v. Walker (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 386, review granted March
22, 2023, S278309, Barnette argues that when one of the enumerated mitigating
circumstances listed in section 1385, subdivision (c)(2) is present, there is a rebuttable
presumption that the enhancement at issue should be dismissed. Our Supreme Court is
now poised to decide whether this statute creates a rebuttable presumption, having
granted review in Walker. But even if it did, it would have no impact on this case. As
Walker explained, “section 1385’s mandate to ‘afford great weight’ to mitigating
circumstances erects a rebuttable presumption that obligates a court to dismiss the
enhancement unless the court finds that dismissal of that enhancement . . . would
endanger public safety.” (Walker, at p. 391, italics added.) Here, the trial court expressly
found that dismissing Barnette’s firearm enhancements would endanger public safety,
and Barnette does not challenge that finding. Therefore, to the extent any presumption in
favor of dismissal exists, it would be rebutted in this case.
       B.     Witness Statements
       Barnette next contends the trial court failed to recognize its discretion to consider
the witness statements intended to challenge the validity of Barnette’s convictions. But
the trial court did consider these materials. At the outset of the hearing, the trial court
stated it had “read and considered the briefs.” The trial court went on to state that many
of the factual assertions in the briefs filed by defense counsel are not supported by the
evidence produced at trial, including the assertion that “the crime was committed in self-
defense or in the heat of passion.” The trial court thus reviewed the statements submitted

2 Barnette also asserts that section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(C) applies here: “The
application of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years.” But even
without the firearm enhancements, Barnette’s minimum sentence would be over 20 years.

                                               5
with Barnette’s briefs but rejected them as insubstantial and contrary to the weight of
evidence from trial. That the trial court did not give the evidence the weight Barnette
believed it should have does not mean the trial court did not consider it.
       C.     Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
       Lastly, Barnette claims his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing
to apprise the court of its discretion to consider the witness statements. Because the trial
court considered the witness statements, however, trial counsel need not have taken any
action and we find no ineffective assistance of counsel. (See People v. Pierce (2015)
234 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1337 [“Since the claim fails on its merits, defense counsel did not
render ineffective assistance”].)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order declining to strike Barnette’s firearm enhancements is
affirmed.

                                                      /s/
                                                  BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

    /s/
EARL, P. J.

   /s/
MAURO, J.

                                              6