Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantstatuteappealfelony
defendantstatuteappealtrialfelony

Related Cases

State v. Aiu, 59 Haw. 92, 576 P.2d 1044
View Case »
Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 125 S.Ct. 2582, 162 L.Ed.2d 552, 73 USLW 4600, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5458, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7463, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 473
View Case »
Banks v. United States, 237 A.3d 90
View Case »
People v. Chesebro, 206 Mich.App. 468, 522 N.W.2d 677
View Case »
People v. Hannon, 19 Cal.3d 588, 564 P.2d 1203, 138 Cal.Rptr. 885
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

People v. Cruz, 13 Cal.4th 764, 919 P.2d 731, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 117, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5843, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9471

Facts

Defendant was convicted in 1993 of two counts of second-degree robbery and one count of possession of a firearm by an ex-felon. A jury found true the allegation that he had a prior serious felony conviction for first-degree burglary from 1992. The Court of Appeal initially vacated the five-year enhancement based on the argument that the prior conviction could have been for burglary of a vessel, which would not qualify as a serious felony under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court granted review to determine the applicability of the enhancement.

In 1993, a jury convicted defendant of two counts of second degree robbery ( §§ 211 , 212.5 , former subd. (b) [now subd. (c)]), and one count of possession of a firearm by an ex-felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the allegations that defendant used a firearm in committing the robberies. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) In a bifurcated trial, a second jury found true the allegation that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction in 1992 for a first degree burglary that occurred in 1991.

Issue

Whether proof that the defendant suffered a 1992 conviction for first-degree burglary adequately proved the truth of a serious felony enhancement allegation as defined by Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(18).

The question before us is whether proof that the defendant suffered a 1992 conviction for first degree burglary adequately proved the truth of a serious felony enhancement allegation as defined by Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(18) (section 1192.7(c)(18)).

Rule

Section 1192.7(c)(18) defines serious felonies for sentence enhancement as including 'burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, or trailer coach as defined by the Vehicle Code, or inhabited portion of any other building.'

Section 1192.7, subdivision (c), provides in pertinent part: 'As used in this section, ‘serious felony’ means any of the following: [¶] … (18) burglary of an inhabited dwelling house, or trailer coach as defined by the Vehicle Code, or inhabited portion of any other building.'

Analysis

The court determined that the term 'inhabited dwelling house' is broad and inclusive, encompassing an inhabited vessel. The court rejected the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the definitions diverged after the 1989 amendment to section 460, which explicitly included inhabited vessels. The court found that proof of the defendant's prior conviction for first-degree burglary, which could include an inhabited vessel, sufficiently established the truth of the serious felony enhancement.

As we shall explain, the phrase 'inhabited dwelling house' is a broad, inclusive term that includes an inhabited vessel. The circumstance that the Legislature amended the statutory definition of first degree burglary in section 460, to include explicitly burglary of an inhabited vessel, does not require us to interpret the broad, inclusive term 'inhabited dwelling house' in a narrow fashion when the term appears in section 1192.7(c)(18).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision and remanded the matter, affirming the five-year enhancement based on the prior burglary conviction.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal reversed and matter remanded.

Who won?

The People prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld the serious felony enhancement based on the interpretation of the relevant statutes.

The People petitioned for review, claiming substantial evidence supported the jury's finding on the sentence enhancement allegation under a proper reading of the relevant statutes.

You must be