People v. Lenhart

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SETH LENHART, Defendant and Appellant.

F086689

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

November 26, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, No BF192849A Michael Caves, Judge.

Peggy A. Headley, 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, Louis M. Vasquez, Lewis A. Martinez, and Joseph Penney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SNAUFFER, J.

Defendant Seth Lenhart was convicted of several crimes after he carjacked a man, led police on a chase, and crashed the victim's car. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years, four months in prison. The parties agree, as do we, that the sentence must be vacated, and the matter must be remanded for a full resentencing because the trial court failed to properly apply Penal Code section 654.^[1] In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

An information charged Lenhart with carjacking (§ 215 subd. (a); count 1), evading a pursuing peace officer (Veh Code, § 2800.2; count 2), evading a pursuing peace officer by driving in the opposite direction of traffic (Veh. Code, § 2800.4; count 3), vandalism causing damage of $400 or more (§ 594, subd. (b)(1); count 4), and misdemeanor elder abuse (§ 368, subd. (c); count 5).

The information also alleged as to counts 1 through 4 that there existed aggravating factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421,^[2] but the information did not specify the factors. During trial, the information was orally amended to specify the aggravating factors were those listed in rule 4.421(a)(1) and (a)(3).^[3]

The jury convicted Lenhart on counts 1 through 4 but acquitted him on count 5. In a bifurcated court trial, the trial court found both aggravating factors true.

The trial court sentenced Lenhart to a total term of six years, four months in prison. The court imposed the middle term of five years on count 1 (carjacking), a consecutive eight-month term on count 2 (evading), and a consecutive eight-month term on count 4 (vandalism). The court also imposed and stayed under section 654 an eightmonth term on count 3 (evading while driving wrong way).^[4]

FACTS

I. The carjacking

On January 7, 2023, at around 7:20 p.m., V., a 73-year-old man, was driving in the area of Beardsley and North Chester Avenues in Bakersfield. He was in his mother's 1998 Saturn sedan. He stopped at the red light where those avenues intersect and put the car in park because the light takes a long time to change.

Lenhart was standing at the corner, "[r]ambling and raising hell and cussing and screaming." V. testified he did not recall very much about what happened to him at that street corner. He explained he was traumatized by what happened, and his mind must have "blanked . out" the incident.^[5] But he remembered that a man, whom he later identified as Lenhart, drove off in V.'s car and was laughing. He remembered never giving Lenhart permission to take his car, and he stated he did not know Lenhart before the incident. V. testified he remembered speaking with police at the intersection but could not recall what he said or why the police were there. The incident left him sleepless for days and "scared to death."

V. told a deputy sheriff that after he spotted Lenhart at the corner, Lenhart appeared to walk off, but suddenly appeared at V.'s car. Lenhart opened the driver's door and pulled V. from the car. V. tried fighting Lenhart to take back control of the car, but Lenhart said he had a gun, so V. backed off. V. told the deputy he did not have any weapons, and the deputy did not see any weapons on or near V.

In response to questioning from the prosecutor, V. testified that he called defense counsel after the preliminary hearing.^[6] He explained that defense counsel "scared the hell out of [him]" during the hearing by asking him if he hit Lenhart in the head with a bat. He was scared he could get jailed for assault. He unsuccessfully tried reaching the district attorney's office, then called defense counsel and offered to drop the carjacking charge if counsel would "quit the bat thing." He testified at trial that he does not recall hitting Lenhart with a bat and stated that he did not engage with or provoke Lenhart; also, he never had a bat in his car.

II. Evading offenses and vandalism

Around 7:25 p.m. the same day of the carjacking, a deputy sheriff received a report of a carjacking involving a 1998 Saturn in the area of North Chester and Beardsley Avenues. The deputy saw a car matching the description, made a U-turn, and began following the Saturn, which was proceeding normally.

As the Saturn approached the Kern County Sheriff's Office headquarters, the Saturn's driver turned on his right turn signal as if preparing to turn into the headquarters parking lot. The deputy activated the solid red forward-facing lights and the red and blue flashing lights on his marked patrol car to initiate a traffic stop. As soon as he activated his lights, the Saturn sped away down the road. The deputy activated his sirens. The Saturn then entered the opposing lanes of traffic and reached speeds of over 70 miles per hour. The Saturn then went back into the proper lanes. As the Saturn approached a bridge overpass, going about 70 miles per hour, the driver "immediately lost control" and swerved left to right before colliding into a pillar of the overpass on the driver's side. The total distance of the pursuit, from the sheriff's headquarters to the crash, was about .8 miles.

V. was taken to the crash site and saw his car had been destroyed. V. testified the car was worth around $4,000 to $5,000. V. identified Lenhart at the scene as the person who took his car.

III. Defense

Lenhart, who was 21 years old at the time of the offenses, testified in his own defense. He was homeless and slept under a tree near the intersection where the incident with V. occurred. His testimony differed significantly from V.'s version of events.

On January 7, 2023, Lenhart was walking to a park to play basketball. He heard footsteps from behind, turned around, and was hit in the head by V. with an aluminum baseball bat. He was struck on the left of his face, including on the corner of his left eye. He did not know who V. was and claimed the attack was unprovoked. The strike caused him to drop his basketball. He told V. he was going to get his basketball, but he was scared and panicked, so he walked across the street and "jumped" into V.'s car instead. The driver's door was open. V. did not try to hit him again, "but it looked like the intention was there." Once he was in the car, V. grabbed ahold of his foot and tried pulling him out of the car. V. said, "Get the fuck out of my car." Lenhart yanked his foot free and drove away.

Lenhart stated he only vaguely remembered speaking with police or being involved in a crash. On cross-examination, he stated he was scared while driving V.'s car before the deputy attempted to pull him over because he did not know how much trouble he was going to be in for being in someone else's car. He also claimed he was driving to sheriff's headquarters because he was scared, had just been assaulted, and wanted to "make amends to see what was the next step from there." When he saw the deputy's flashing lights, he was "pretty scared, so [he] made an attempt to flee." He said he did not want to stop for the deputy because he has PTSD, was scared, and "didn't know what would happen." He said, "[A]nytime somebody is lit up they're in trouble."

DISCUSSION

I. Prosecutorial misconduct

Lenhart asserts that the prosecutor misstated the reasonable doubt standard three times during closing argument in a manner that reduced the prosecution's burden of proof, thereby violating his state and federal rights to due process and a fair trial. He contends the prosecutor's misstatements suggested the burden is less rigorous than the law requires and shifted the burden to the defense. We disagree.

A. Reasonable doubt standard

A criminal defendant is presumed innocent, and it is the prosecution's burden to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (§ 1096; Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 5.) Section 1096 defines reasonable doubt:" 'It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.' "

CALCRIM No. 220, which was given to Lenhart's jury, describes the presumption of innocence and the prosecutor's burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.^[7]

B. Basic law on prosecutorial misconduct

"A prosecutor's misconduct violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution when it 'infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.' [Citations.] In other words, the misconduct must be 'of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial.' [Citation.] A prosecutor's misconduct 'that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair' violates California law 'only if it involves" 'the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.'" '" (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 242.)

"When attacking the prosecutor's remarks to the jury, the defendant must show that, '[i]n the context of the whole argument and the...