Court Opinion

ID: 9915834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 19:02:25.02935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:24.477720
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/8/24 P. v. Hudson CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F085108
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                              (Super. Ct. No. 20CMS-2144)
                    v.

    CLAUDE EUGENE HUDSON, JR.,                                                            OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Michael J.
Reinhart, Judge.
         Joseph M. Ahart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Hannah Janigian Chavez,
Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.
        Defendant Claude Eugene Hudson, Jr., contends on appeal that the judgment must
be reversed and remanded because the trial court erred by (1) denying defendant’s
demand for a jury trial under the United States Constitution and the California
Constitution; and (2) imposing a $300 probation revocation restitution fine under Penal
Code section 1202.44.1 The People agree that the judgment must be reversed and
remanded because defendant did not validly waive his right to a jury trial under the
United States and California Constitutions. However, the People contend we need not
reach the issue of whether the court properly imposed a fine pursuant to section 1202.44
because the case must be reversed and remanded. We agree with the People.
        We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for defendant to exercise his right
to a jury trial.
                              PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
        On October 12, 2021, the Kings County District Attorney filed a first amended
consolidated information charging defendant with resisting an executive officer (§ 69;
count 1); two counts of trespass and refusing to leave private property (§ 602, subd. (o);
counts 2 & 3); and aggravated trespass (§ 602.5, subd. (b); count 4).
        Defendant pleaded not guilty to all counts.
        On September 20, 2022, the trial court found defendant guilty on count 1 and the
remaining counts were dismissed.
        On the same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total of two years in
county jail. Defendant was awarded 400 days actual credit and 400 days conduct credit.
The court imposed various fines and fees pursuant to sections 1202.4, subdivision (b),
1202.45, 1465.8, and Government Code section 70373. The fines and fees were deemed
paid since defendant’s time credits exceeded his sentence.

1       All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

                                             2.
       On October 4, 2022, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                          DISCUSSION2
       Defendant contends that the judgment must be reversed and his case remanded
because he did not validly waive his right to a jury trial under the United States and
California Constitutions. The People agree, as do we.
       A.      Background
       On February 25, 2022, the trial court held a pretrial conference. The court asked
defense counsel what the status of the case was, and defense counsel answered, “I met
and conferred with [defendant;] he is amenable to a court trial. We would like to set this
for a court trial on all open matters.”
       However, when the trial court asked defendant directly whether he understood the
difference between a court trial and jury trial, defendant answered, “Okay, we’ll do the
jury trial, I’ll maintain my—.” Defense counsel then said, “Let’s set a jury trial.” When
the clerk provided the dates for the trial, she stated she set the matter for a “jury trial
commencing August [29th] at 9:30 [a.m.]”
       However, the minute order from the hearing states, “Defendant waives [his] right
to [a] [j]ury [t]rial and requests the matter proceed as a [c]ourt [t]rial.”
       On July 15, 2022, at the pretrial hearing, the trial court stated the dates were set
“for the court trial on August 29th .…” Defense counsel then stated, “Correct.
[Defendant] previously waived jury on these matters, and we’re requesting to proceed by
court trial on that date.”
       On September 19, 2022, at the trial confirmation hearing, the parties confirmed
that the matter was set for a court trial.

2      The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal
and therefore are not included here.

                                               3.
       On September 20, 2022, defendant was tried during a one-day court trial and
found guilty on count 1, with all remaining counts dismissed.
       B.     Law
       When conflicting records cannot be harmonized, the court will look at the
circumstances of the specific case to determine which portion of the record should
prevail. (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 226.) If there is a discrepancy
between the court’s oral pronouncement and the minute order, it is presumed that the
discrepancy results from clerical error in recording the court’s order. (People v. Sanchez
(2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 261, 268.)
       Under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution, a criminal
defendant has the right to a trial by jury. (U.S. Const., 6th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const.,
art. 1, § 16; see also People v. Ernst (1994) 8 Cal.4th 441, 444–445 (Ernst).) The right to
a jury trial is a fundamental constitutional right and may only be waived if the defendant
gives a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver. (People v. Collins (2001)
26 Cal.4th 297, 304–305.)
       A waiver is intelligent if “ ‘ “ ‘made with a full awareness both of the nature of the
right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it[.]’ ” ’ ”
(People v. Collins, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 305.) A waiver must be express and cannot be
implied from the defendant’s conduct. (Collins, at p. 308; Ernst, supra, 8 Cal.4th at
p. 445.)
       A denial of a constitutional right, such as the right to a jury trial, constitutes a
defect in judicial proceedings which results in a miscarriage of justice. (Ernst, supra,
8 Cal.4th at pp. 448–449.) When there is a miscarriage of justice stemming from a
procedural error, a judgment may be set aside. (Id. at p. 449.)

                                               4.
        C.      Analysis
        Here, we agree with the parties that the court erred by denying defendant his right
to a jury trial under the United States and California Constitutions because defendant did
not provide a valid jury trial waiver. (See Ernst, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 448–449.)
Defendant clearly stated to the trial court during the first pretrial hearing on February 25,
2022, that he wanted a jury trial after the court explained to him the difference between a
court trial and jury trial, which the court then acknowledged and the clerk orally stated
that she set accordingly.
        Here, there was a discrepancy between the minute order and the reporter’s
transcript from the February 25, 2022 hearing. Looking at the circumstances of this case,
we conclude the reporter’s transcript of the hearing controls. (See People v. Harrison,
supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 226; see also People v. Sanchez, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 268.)
The transcript of the pretrial hearing clearly records statements made by defendant,
defense counsel, the trial court, and the clerk explicitly stating defendant would receive a
jury trial. Throughout the rest of that hearing, all parties appeared to agree that the trial
would be by jury, with the clerk confirming the matter was set for a jury trial. However,
as a result of a clerical error in the minute order, a court trial was set instead of a jury
trial, and the court mistakenly proceeded on that basis at the following hearings and the
subsequent court trial. Accordingly, defendant was deprived of his right to a jury trial.3
(See Ernst, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 448–449.)
                                       DISPOSITION
        The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for defendant to exercise his
right to a jury trial.

3      As the judgment is reversed and remanded, we need not reach the second issue
raised by defendant as to whether the court properly imposed and stayed a $300 probation
revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.44.

                                               5.