People v. Thornton

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHAUN LAYJEWEL THORNTON, Defendant and Appellant.

E080933

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

November 14, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. SWF2100367 F. Paul Dickerson III, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with directions.

Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and and Laura A. Baggett, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

FIELDS J.

I. INTRODUCTION

In March 2021, multiple law enforcement vehicles engaged in the pursuit of a vehicle being driven by defendant and appellant Shaun Layjewel Thornton. Defendant's vehicle eventually crashed, causing injury to Jane Doe, a passenger in the vehicle.

As a result of this incident, a jury convicted defendant of multiple offenses, including one count of evading a police officer while operating a motor vehicle causing serious bodily injury (count 2; Veh. Code, § 2800.3) and one count of causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence of a drug (count 6; Veh. Code, § 23153 subd. (f)). The jury also found true special allegations that the commission of count 2 constituted a serious felony under Penal Code^[1] section 667 (Three Strikes Law) and the commission of count 6 caused great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7. Defendant later admitted he had suffered two prior strike convictions and, as a result, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life in state prison on count 6 and a concurrent term of 25 years to life in state prison on count 2. The trial court also imposed an additional "term of four years on the 12022 enhancement"^[2] but struck the punishment for the enhancement.

Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it must find Jane Doe was not an accomplice in order to return a true finding on the special allegations related to sections 667 and 12022.7; (2) the trial court erred by failing to stay his sentence on count 2 pursuant to section 654; and (3) the abstract of judgment contains an error requiring correction. We agree with defendant that the trial court erred in instructing the jury but also conclude that only the error involving section 12022.7 was prejudicial. Given this conclusion, defendant is entitled to vacatur of his sentence and the jury's true finding with respect to the section 12022.7 sentence enhancement, rendering defendant's additional arguments moot.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts and Charges

Defendant and Jane Doe had been in a romantic relationship since sometime in 2020. On March 11, 2021, multiple law enforcement vehicles engaged in the pursuit of a vehicle being driven by defendant. Defendant eventually crashed the vehicle into a tree, exited the vehicle, and attempted to flee on foot. After defendant fled, law enforcement officers discovered Jane Doe pinned under the dashboard of the vehicle.

As a result of this incident, defendant was charged with kidnapping (count 1; § 207, subd. (a)); causing serious bodily injury as the result of evading a police officer while operating a motor vehicle (count 2; Veh. Code, § 2800.3); failure to remain at the scene of an accident involving an injury (count 3; Veh. Code, § 20001); false imprisonment (count 4; § 236); domestic violence resulting in a traumatic condition (count 5; § 273.5, subd. (a)); causing bodily injury as the result of driving under the influence of a drug (count 6; Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (f)); possession of prohibited drug paraphernalia (count 7;Health &Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)); and resisting arrest (count 8; § 148).

The second amended information also alleged that (1) defendant had suffered two prior convictions qualifying as serious felonies under section 667, subdivision (a); (2) defendant's commission of counts 1, 2, 4, and 6 constituted serious felonies pursuant to sections 667 and 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8); (3) defendant inflicted great bodily injury against a person other than an accomplice (§ 12022.7, subdivision (a)) in the commission of counts 1 and 4; and (4) defendant inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subdivision (e)) in the commission of count 6.

B. Relevant Evidence at Trial^[3]

1. Testimony of Jane Doe

Jane Doe testified that she had been in a complicated, unsteady romantic relationship with defendant since sometime in 2020. Defendant's use of illicit drugs was a concern throughout their relationship, and Jane Doe also experienced occasions in which defendant inflicted physical injuries on her. She also testified that defendant typically exhibited possessive, controlling behaviors as a result of drug consumption.

On the evening of March 10, 2021, Jane Doe rented a motel room for herself and defendant. According to Jane Doe, she rented the room to "keep [defendant] safe" because she believed defendant was in some type of trouble with his parole officer. While at the motel, she witnessed defendant consume some type of drug, which she believed to be methamphetamine. Defendant then drove Jane Doe and another friend in Jane Doe's car to a casino. However, when they arrived, defendant became angry, argued with Jane Doe, struck Jane Doe in the face, and eventually drove erratically from the scene with Jane Doe in the passenger seat of the vehicle.

When they arrived back at their motel, a law enforcement vehicle pulled up behind them. Jane Doe testified that when defendant saw the law enforcement vehicle, defendant "took off," "driving fast, trying to get away from the cop." Jane Doe admitted she remained in the vehicle but claimed she did not do anything. Eventually, defendant parked Jane Doe's vehicle in a residential area, told Jane Doe to exit the vehicle, and the two started to run away together on foot. At some point, Jane Doe decided to stop running and instead stopped to speak with the pursuing law enforcement officers while defendant continued to run. The officers spoke with Jane Doe and escorted Jane Doe back to her motel room, where Jane Doe spent the night alone.

On the morning of March 11, Jane Doe called defendant on the phone, informed defendant that she had returned to their motel room but urged defendant not to return to the motel because she had observed law enforcement officers present in the area. Defendant ignored Jane Doe, returned to the motel driving Jane Doe's car, and began yelling at Jane Doe to get in the vehicle. Jane Doe initially refused to get in the vehicle but eventually entered the vehicle and sat in the front passenger seat. She testified that she did so because she wanted to avoid making a scene and "didn't want to create a bigger situation," worrying that she could get kicked out of her apartment, become entangled with child protective services, go to jail, or be found in violation of the terms of her probation.^[4] Jane Doe also suggested that she believed at the time that she wanted to avoid getting into trouble because "this was a drug-and alcohol-induced toxic relationship."

Jane Doe recalled that shortly after she entered the vehicle with defendant, a law enforcement vehicle pulled up behind them and signaled for defendant to pull over. Jane Doe testified that both she and defendant began making statements expressing anxiety over the fact that a law enforcement officer was following them.^[5] At first, defendant drove "normal[ly]," but he suddenly drove through a red traffic signal without stopping and began to drive faster than the speed limit. According to Jane Doe, defendant was driving in an attempt to evade police, but she did not feel that his driving was so reckless that she feared for her safety. However, Jane Doe was also impeached with prior testimony that she feared for her safety; impeached with prior testimony that she believed she was at risk of being physically injured during this time; and later gave contradictory testimony describing the situation as a "life or die situation" and claiming she was "trying to stay alive."

Jane Doe testified that, as defendant was attempting to avoid pursuing law enforcement vehicles, she did not yell or do anything to make him upset because she "was trying to do whatever [she] could to make him drive good to get us out of the situation that was at hand," and acknowledged that that might have entailed telling defendant "whatever he wanted to hear." When pressed, Jane Doe equivocated and repeatedly stated that she could not remember with sufficient detail what she might have said in the vehicle,^[6] but she acknowledged that she did not tell defendant to stop driving or tell defendant how to maneuver the vehicle. On more than one occasion, Jane Doe suggested that she could not remember because she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time.^[7]

Eventually, defendant drove Jane Doe's vehicle over a curb and crashed into a tree. After the crash, defendant ran from the scene on foot. Jane Doe was pinned down in the vehicle and could not get out on her own. Jane Doe fractured her pelvis, requiring surgery and several months of recovery before she could walk again.

2. Testimony of Law Enforcement Officer

A law enforcement officer testified that on March 11, 2021 he was driving in a patrol vehicle when he witnessed a vehicle pull out of a motel parking lot in an unsafe manner, barely avoiding a collision with another vehicle. He began to follow the vehicle which he described as traveling at a high rate of speed. When the officer activated his vehicle's...