PEOPLE v. NUNEZ & SATELEAppellant, Daniel Nunez, Focus Issues LetterCal.March 20, 2013aeegn oeME COURT COP) JANYCE KEIKO IMATA BLAIR ATTORNEY AT LAW SUPREME COURT 321 RICHMOND STREET F | L E D EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245 JKIBLAIR@BLECKMANBLAIR.COM; T:310.606,9262; F:310.524.1314 ower =ere ere n MAR 20 2013 March 14, 2013 Frank A. McGuire Clerk Deputy Frank McGuire Clerk/Administrator California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102-4873 Re: People v. Daniel Nunez and William Tupua Satele (S091915; LASC NA039358) Oral Argument; Focus Issues Dear Mr. McGuire: By appointmentof this Court, I serve as counsel to Daniel Nunez, the appellant in t he above-referenced automatic appeal. The court has scheduled oral argument in this matter f or April 4, 2013. Please inform the court of the focus issues listed below. The Appearance Page and an Application to Divide Oral Argument Time with David Goodwin, cou nsel for coappellant Mr. Satele, are attached. I would be pleased to respond to questions from the Court regarding any of th e issues raised in the appeal, but I anticipate focusing my argument primarily upon the follo wingissues, referenced here by the roman numeralusedin the opening brief: I. The court incorrectly instructed the jury on the personal firearm use enha ncement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53(d)(e)(1)) whenit failed to define essential elements ofthe e nhancement. IV. The court incorrectly instructed the jury on the gang enhancement (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)) whenit failed to define essential elements of the enhancement. V. The court incorrectly instructed the jury on the mental state required f or accomplice liability when a special circumstance is charged (CALJIC 8.80.1), which all owed the jury to return a true finding based on a legally incorrect theory. XX. The court incorrectly instructed that a person who aids and abets is “equally guilty” of a murder committed by the actualkiller (CALJIC No.3.00). Frank McGuire 2 Clerk/Administrator California Supreme Court People v. Daniel Nunez and William Satele (S091915 March 14, 2013 I am also notifying counsel for codefendant William Satele and respondent Attorney General’s Office of these focus issues via U.S. Postal Service today. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please let me know if thereis further information needed. Very truly yours, JANYCE O IMATA BLAIR Frank McGuire 3 Clerk/Administrator California Supreme Court People v. Daniel Nunez and William Satele (S091915 March 14, 2013 PROOF OF SERVICE I declare that I am overthe age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action and that my business address is 321 RichmondStreet, Suite A, El Segundo, California 90245. On March 20, 2013, I served the Focus Issues Letter on behalf of Appellant Daniel Nunez in People v. Daniel Nunez and William Tupua Satele (S091915; LASC NA039358) on the interested parties in said action by placing true copies thereof, enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below with postage fully prepaid, at El Segundo, California , with United States Postal Service. 1. Carl Henry, Esq., DAG Attorney General’s Office 300 South Spring Street Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 2. Valerie Hriciga, Esq. California Appellate Project 101 Second Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105 3. David H. Goodwin, Esq. Counsel for Coappella nt P.O. Box 93579 Los Angeles, CA 90093-0579 4. Wesley Van Winkle, Esq. Counsel for Coapp ellant P.O. Box 5216 Berkeley, CA 94705 5. Mr. Daniel Flores Nunez P93225 CSP-San Quentin 2-AC-52 San Quentin, CA 94974 | declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 20, 2013, at El Segundo, California. Star JANYCE KMBLAIR