PEOPLE v. NUNEZ & SATELE

Appellant, William Satele, Focus Issues Letter

Cal.March 22, 2013

, David Goodwin SUPREME COURT COPY Attorney at Law / P.O. Box 93579 Los Angeles, CA 90093-0579 (323) 666-9960 oeTLCOURT March 16, 2013 MAR 2 2 2013 Frank McGuire Clerk/Administrator Frank A. McGuire Clerk California Supreme Court 350 McAllister Street Deputy Room 1295 San Francisco, CA 94102-3600 Re:People v. Nunez and Satele Case No. 8091915 Dear Mr. McGuire, By appointmentofthis court, I am the attorney for appellant William TupauSatele in the automatic appeal from a judgment of death. The case has been set for oral argumentfor April 4, 2013. Thisletter is to inform the court of the focus issues listed below. Although I would be pleased to respond to questions from the court regardinganyissuesraised in the appeal, I anticipate focusing my argument primarily upon the following issues, referenced by the Roman numeralusedin the Opening and Supplemental Briefs: As discussed in ArgumentI, the jury finding that both appellants personally used the firearm was improper, in violation of appellant’s right to due process of law and other fundamentalconstitutional rights. These findings were contrary to all of the reliable evidence presented attrial by the prosecution. They were also were also contrary to the theory ofthe case argued by the prosecution during the guilt phase. This error improperly elevated the culpability of appellant and was compounded whenthetrial court, in denying the motionsfor a newtrial and modification of the sentence, relied in part on the fact that the jury determined that both defendants were the actual shooters. The finding that appellant personally fired the shots negated the need for the jury to determine whether appellanthadthe requisite intent for first degree _ ' DEATH PENALTY California Supreme Court March 16, 2013 Page 2 This issue incorporates and implicates other issues raised in the Opening and Supplemental Briefs. The issues further raised are as follows: Aspects ofArgumentsIII and V, respectively,the trial court’s errors in incorrectly instructing the jury on the gang enhancement and the weapon enhancement. Aspects of Arguments II and IV, and arguments from the Supplemental Brief, respectively, the failure to instruct on implied malice, error in instructing the jury that being a “major participant” was sufficient to trigger first degree murder, and error in instructing that all participants in the offense were “equally guilty.” Additionally, please inform the court that I intendto rely on additional authority not contained in the briefing. In particular, I intend to rely on People v. Concha (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1089-1090, the opinion of the Court of Appealafter remand from this Court in People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653. That case discusses prejudice from failing to instruct the jury on the need to find each individual defendant’s mensrea. Likewise, I also intent to rely on People v. Gonzalez (Cal. 2012) 54 Cal.4th 643 which discusses when an instruction that improperly omits an element of an offense is harmless. Thank you for yourassistance in this matter. Feel free to contact meif there is any other information that I can provide. However, please be advised that I will be out of the country from March 19" to April 2™ and myaccess to e-mail be limited. Respectfully submitted David H. Goodwin, Attorney for appellant Satele PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL(C.C.P. SEC. 1013.A, 2015.5) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am a resident of the aforesaid county; I am overthe age of eighteen years and nota party to the within entitled action; my business address is P.O. Box 93579, Los Angeles, Ca 90093-0579 On March 16, 2013, I served the within Focus Letter Regarding Isssue to be Discussed at Oral Argument _on the interested parties in said action, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,in the United States mail at Los Angeles , California addressed as follows: Carl Henry, D.A.G. Wes VanWinkle Office of the Attorney General P O Box 5216 300 South Spring Street Berkeley, CA 94705-0216 Los Angeles, CA 90013 (Assisting Attorney) Laura Murry William Satele California Appellate Project P-93224, 1AC60 101 Second Street, Suite 600 San Quentin State Prison San Francisco, CA 94105 San Quentin, CA 94974 (assisting attorney for co-appellant) Janyce Blair 321 RichmondStreet El Segundo, Ca 90245 - Counsel for appellant Nunez Executed on March 16, 2013, at Los Angeles, California I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoingis true and correct. A) \., David H. Goodwin