P. v. McNeely
A jury convicted Defendant with residential burglary (Pen. Code, 459, 460; count 1), grand theft ( 487, subd. (a); count 2), and receiving stolen property ( 496, subd. (a); count 5). McNeely admitted allegations that he suffered 11 no-probation prior convictions ( 1203, subd. (e)(4)), 11 prior prison term convictions ( 667.5, subd. (b), 668), two serious felony convictions ( 667, subd. (a)), and 11 prior strike convictions under the "Three Strikes" law ( 667, subds. (b)-(i),1170.12, 668). The court sentenced McNeely to a state prison term of 38 years and eight months consisting of an indeterminate 25-year-to-life term under the Three Strikes law for the burglary count, a consecutive 3-year upper term for the grand theft count, a consecutive 8-month term for the receiving stolen property count, and two consecutive 5-year serious felony enhancements. On appeal, McNeely contends his convictions must be reversed because (1) the trial court denied him his state and federal constitutional right to self-representation; (2) the court's decision to remove him from the courtroom deprived him of his constitutional and statutory right to be present at his trial; (3) the trial court erred by denying his request for a new trial based on juror misconduct, and further erred by denying him access to juror information; and (4) he was deprived of his federal constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process when the trial court imposed the upper term on his grand theft count and mandatory consecutive sentences under the Three Strikes law based on factual findings not made by a jury or beyond a reasonable doubt.
As Court explain, Court agree that under the circumstances of this case, McNeely established good cause for a hearing under Code of Civil Procedure section 237 for release of personal juror identifying information, which is necessary to assess whether Juror No. 8's misconduct improperly influenced the jury's deliberations. Court further conclude that absent the juror identifying information, the trial court could not adequately assess whether the People rebutted the presumption of prejudice. Court vacate the judgment and remand with directions set forth below.
Comments on P. v. McNeely