Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Harris CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
THE PEOPLE, C102145
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. 22FE001458)
v.
KAILIN HARRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Kailin Harris appeals a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty
of several offenses including murder with special circumstances and a gun enhancement.
He contends the trial court erred in: (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence
obtained in violation of his constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures; and (2) failing to dismiss the firearm enhancement under Penal Code section
1385, subdivision (c)(2)(C). Having considered his arguments, we will affirm.
BACKGROUND
Given the issues on appeal, we limit the factual summary to the information
relevant to the disposition of Harris’s arguments.
The People charged Harris with eight counts: murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a);
count one) with a burglary-murder special circumstance (Pen, Code, § 190.2, subd.
(a)(17)) and firearm enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (a)-(d)); burglary of a
vehicle (§ 459; count two); possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd.
1
(a)(1); count three); and misdemeanor tampering with a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10852;
counts four-eight). The information also alleged Harris had suffered a prior strike
conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) for attempted first degree
residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 664/459).
Harris filed a motion to suppress the observations made during the warrantless
search of his apartment as well as any and all evidence seized therefrom. (Pen. Code,
§ 1538.5.) He alleged the deputies who responded to assist animal control with retrieving
his dogs entered his home without a warrant, secured the dogs, and then remained inside
after confirming no other dogs or people were present. Instead of leaving and securing
the apartment as instructed by detectives, those deputies turned off their body cameras for
approximately four minutes and then allegedly found incriminating clothing in plain sight
within seconds after reactivating those cameras.
The People opposed the motion on multiple fronts including: (1) Harris had no
reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment he had abandoned, (2) the deputies
lawfully entered that apartment pursuant to an exigency involving the dogs, and even if
they overstayed the exigency, (3) the warrant for the search of that apartment was
supported by independent evidence, and in any event, (4) the evidence would have been
inevitably discovered. The People attached the search warrant and related materials to
their opposition.
1. The Search Warrant and Related Materials
Given the importance of the search warrant to this case, we discuss it at length.
The warrant issued on January 22, 2022, following the court’s review of Detective Robert
Peters’s affidavit, authorizing a search of Harris’s apartment (herein referred to as
Apartment No. 3) and its associated garage for specified items, including items related to
firearms, specified items of clothing, and a Honda generator. The warrant stated that
“there is probable cause to believe that the property described herein may be found at the
2
location set forth herein and that it is lawfully seizable … in that: [¶] … [¶] It tends to
show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a
felony.”
Peters’s affidavit set forth his extensive training and experience followed by a 13-
page statement of investigative facts establishing probable cause. Peters’s probable case
statement relayed the following:
Apartment No. 3 was located within Sacramento County and was “part of a two-
story building/dwelling that contains four (4) apartments.” Peters attested to knowing the
information set forth in the affidavit “either from personal observations, interviews and/or
information which was related to [him] by other law enforcement officers based upon
prior investigations and law enforcement reports.”
On January 17, 2022, at 5:29 a.m., the Sacramento County Communications
Center received a ShotSpotter activation for an address on Greenlawn Way. The system
indicated two gunshots had been fired and a 911 call from that address came in shortly
thereafter. The caller reported someone shot the caller’s dad who lived next door. A
duplicate 911 call relayed that “an unknown subject(s) broke into their mother-in-law’s
residence and tried to steal guns out of the house, and shot the caller’s father in the head.”
Sheriff deputies responded and discovered the victim (identified as G.M.) lying on
the ground behind the residence. G.M. had a gunshot wound to his head but was still
breathing and was transported for emergency medical treatment.
Investigating deputies spoke with G.M.’s wife, E.M., who relayed that she had
received a series of Ring camera security notifications, which her husband checked on. A
Ring camera in her backyard showed a person exiting their office and her husband tried
to intervene. A struggle ensued and E.M. heard two gunshots. E.M. found her husband
near the backyard gate with a gunshot wound to the head. G.M. underwent surgery but
subsequently died of his injuries.
3
Deputies located two shell casings near the backyard gate, as well as a bicycle and
several bags. They learned two vehicles west of G.M.’s home had also been burglarized.
G.M.’s home had exterior surveillance cameras and another neighbor had potential
“video footage of the suspect fleeing.” The detectives “authored and received a search
warrant to process [G.M.’s] property for evidence, as well as collect the video footage
from his DVR system.” Pursuant to that warrant, detectives reviewed surveillance
footage from G.M.’s “surveillance system[’s] DVR, as well as the residence’s Ring
camera footage.”
“While reviewing the Ring camera footage, detectives saw the suspect, who was
wearing a black mask, a gray/white/black Aztec type zip-up jacket and black pants with
red and green designs on the pant legs, carrying an orange Honda generator and a large
duffle type bag away from [G.M.’s] property at 4:15:59AM.[1] … [¶] The large duffle
type bag was later identified as a tent. The tent was staged in close proximity of the
suspect’s bike in the pedestrian alley.”
At 5:28 a.m., the suspect tried to leave through G.M.’s gate holding at least two
rifles but was interrupted by G.M., who began fighting with him. The suspect dropped
the rifles, drew a handgun, and shot G.M. two times. G.M. collapsed and the suspect
retrieved the guns and fled south. A still shot of this footage was included therein.
Detectives spotted the suspect on G.M.’s “front yard Ring Camera,” and at “5:29:07 AM,
the suspect ran across the roadway, northwest, to another yard of a duplex. The suspect
was holding two rifles in his hands.”
“Based on the video footage from [G.M.’s] residence detectives began canvassing
the neighborhood for video surveillance footage.” Through footage they obtained,
detectives tracked the suspect’s movements along nine different addresses.
1 A photographic still of this footage was included with the affidavit.
4
This footage showed “the suspect burglarizing a vehicle and checking the doors of
several other vehicles at 2:58 AM. The suspect was wearing the same Aztec type design
sweatshirt. The suspect rode off on a bicycle.” At another address, “[t]he homeowner
had video footage of the suspect trying her side pedestrian gate at 3:38 AM. [¶] Based
on the video footage, it appeared the suspect was burglarizing vehicles a couple hours
before [G.M.’s] murder.”
Detectives located footage showing the suspect fleeing east at “5:30/5:31 AM.”
The suspect was still heading east at 5:37 a.m. and “had now removed the Aztec type
design sweatshirt and was now wearing a black sweatshirt with a white design on the
back of it.”2 Another homeowner reported that “his neighbor confronted the suspect in
his front yard. His neighbor told him the suspect was not wearing his mask and identified
him as a black male adult.”
Detectives tracked the suspect to another address whose “video surveillance
camera captured the suspect walking onto his driveway and approaching his fence at
5:37:44 AM.”3 The suspect had changed his sweatshirt but was still wearing the same
pants with “corresponding patches/designs that were seen on the video footage from
[G.M.’s] Ring camera footage.” Another homeowner’s surveillance camera to the east
“captured the suspect running eastbound across [H.] Boulevard at 5:39:45 AM. The
suspect then hopped a wooden planked fence” to another residence.
Surveillance footage from yet another address showed the suspect leaving the
backyard and walking toward P. Avenue at 5:44:11 a.m.; he then headed east on P.
Avenue.4 “Again, the suspect was wearing the same pants with the corresponding
2 A still of this footage was included with the affidavit.
3 A still of this footage was included with the affidavit.
4 A still of this footage was included with the affidavit.
5
patches/designs that were seen on the video footage from [G.M.’s] Ring camera footage.
[¶] Based on the suspect’s path of travel, it appeared he likely lived and/or stayed in the
immediate vicinity of [G.] Drive.”
“On January 21, 20211 [sic], an Intel Sergeant with the Sacramento Rio
Consumnes Correction Center notified detectives that they had received a notification
from LEO Technologies that an inmate was possibly talking about [G.M.’s] homicide on
the jail’s Inmate Calling Solutions (ICS) phone system.” Detectives reviewed the call
between an inmate and a cellular telephone registered to J.S.
“In the jail call, [J.S.] told [the inmate] that her daughter’s boyfriend was doing
what he does and put a man down in North Highlands. [¶] Based on our collective
training and experience, when someone says they put someone down, they are talking
about killing someone.” Detectives determined that J.S. was the mother of S.S. whose
address as of April 2021 was Apartment No. 3. Detectives learned S.S.’s next of kin was
Kailin Harris whose address in April 2021 was also Apartment No. 3. This apartment
“was approximately half a mile (929 yards) away from [G.M.’s] residence.”
“Based on the jail call, the path of travel of the suspect, and the proximity of
HARRIS’s apartment to the homicide scene, detectives went to [P.] Avenue and [G.]
Drive and canvassed the area for video surveillance cameras.” They “located exterior
cameras on HARRIS’s building that were associated with Apartment #4” and viewed
“the video footage for the morning of January 17, 2022.”
This footage showed the suspect walking toward Apartment No. 3 “at 5:46:45
AM. The suspect was wearing the same clothes seen in the video footage from” two
earlier street addresses. “Additionally, the suspect’s pants had the same corresponding
patches/designs that were seen on the video footage from [G.M.’s] Ring camera footage.”
Detectives also saw video of “the suspect pushing a stroller containing an orange
Honda generator at 4:52:20 AM. Since detectives did not recover a generator at the scene
6
of the homicide, the generator was likely [G.M.’s] generator. Then at 5:06 AM, the
suspect walked back toward [P.] Avenue and the direction of [G.M.’s] residence.”
While reviewing the footage, detectives spoke with the homeowner K.F. who told
them that Harris and S.S. lived in Apartment No. 3, although S.S. moved out several
weeks ago. Harris was the only person living at the apartment, but “[K.F.] had not seen
HARRIS since the afternoon of Monday, January 17, 2022. She said his dogs [had] been
left unattended in the apartment and were causing issues, so she called the Sheriff’s
Office and Animal Control to conduct a welfare check on the dogs.”
“Detectives showed [K.F.] a colored DMV photograph of HARRIS (Photo taken
6/07/2018). She positively identified the person in the photograph as Kailin HARRIS.
“Detectives subsequently spoke to the deputies who responded to perform the
welfare check on the dogs (SSO Event # 22-20787). Detectives asked the deputies to
look for any clothing that matched the suspect clothing, and/or an orange Honda
generator in plain view as they conducted the sweep of the apartment for the animals.
“After conducting their protective sweep, the deputies said they saw a pair of
black pants and a black sweatshirt that matched the suspect’s clothing. They said they
saw clothing items in the kitchen on the floor.”
Peters attested that no one currently resided at “HARRIS’s apartment and Sheriff’s
Deputies are holding the apartment in anticipation of a signed search warrant.”
Based upon the information set forth, Peters requested “the authority to search
HARRIS’s apartment for clothing, as well as evidence related to [G.M.]’s murder” and
stated his belief that “HARRIS is the suspect responsible for [G.M.’s] death” and that
“there will be evidence in the apartment that will further establish his involvement in
[G.M.’s] murder.”
Peters continued that “[b]ased on [his] training and experience, [he] believe[d] a
murder, manslaughter, and/or assault was committed and the suspect fled to the above-
described location.” Further, Peters believed “a search of the above-described location
7
will reveal evidence of the identity and motive of the person(s) responsible for this crime;
as well as, the means of perpetration and the circumstances surrounding the commission
of the crime. …”
Accordingly, he requested a search warrant be issued authorizing the search of
Apartment No. 3 “to include all rooms, garages, outbuildings, storage sheds, storage
lockers and garbage-cans assigned for the use of the occupants of the suspected unit.”
A search pursuant to the warrant occurred on January 22, 2022, and yielded: “A
black jacket, a black pair of pants, a black mask, two pair of black shoes, a price tag, and
a cut gun cable lock.”
2. Evidence from the Suppression Hearing.
Sheriff’s Deputy Christian Lopez testified at the suppression hearing. Shortly
before 11:00 a.m. on January 22, 2022, Lopez and his partner Deputy Pasalo responded
to an animal welfare check on four dogs that had been left alone in Apartment No. 3 for
days and had been heard crying in pain. The noise made by the dogs was increasing, and
they were acting aggressively.
Before Lopez reached the apartment, L.D. spontaneously told him that Kailin lived
at Apartment No. 3, she had previously lived with him, and she had heard he was the
killer in the Greenlawn Way murder. She also confirmed there were four dogs at the
apartment.
Lopez then spoke with K.F., who had called in the animal welfare check. K.F.
reported rescuing one of the injured dogs and putting it in a garage. K.F. also informed
Lopez that homicide detectives were in her apartment upstairs collecting surveillance
footage, and he went with her to her apartment to see the detective. The detective was
investigating a homicide, and Lopez shared what L.D. had said and that he was there to
do an animal welfare check. Lopez had previously seen the crime bulletin associated
8
with the homicide case, and the detective asked him to lookout for an orange generator
during the welfare check.
Lopez returned to Apartment No. 3 and saw through a broken window two
malnourished pitbulls who appeared to be without food or water. Lopez saw a large
mattress on the floor of the living room. The mattress had blood stains and there were
large kitchen knives in the vicinity. The detached garage was open, and Lopez observed
a dog with a cut ear that was actively bleeding. Lopez performed a sweep of the garage
to look for any injured people or the fourth dog (a German Shepherd).
Animal control arrived to assist at approximately 11:45 a.m., and they tried to get
the dogs to jump through the window. When their efforts failed, Lopez entered the
apartment through the damaged window and unlocked the front door. Animal control
took possession of the two pit bulls, and Lopez performed a protective sweep with his
partner to look for the fourth dog but did not find another dog or any people. The
apartment was a mess and easily accessible through the broken window. While clearing
the apartment, Lopez saw “[b]lack jeans in plain view that were used in the homicide.”
He saw the black leg with distinctive markings hanging out of a torn black plastic bag on
the kitchen floor. Lopez removed the jeans to confirm they matched those depicted in the
bulletin and noticed the bag also contained the matching jacket and a black ski mask. He
took photos of the clothing and sent the pictures to the detectives.
It later became clear from the body camera footage that Lopez cleared the
apartment first, then found clothes he thought might have been from the homicide, and
later actually discovered clothes that matched the distinctive clothing used in the
homicide. His body camera was off for four minutes before he located the latter
distinctive clothing. Lopez denied opening or ripping the bag while the camera was off.
Lopez then secured the apartment to protect the evidence therein given the broken
window.
9
The People also presented the testimony of Peters who had been investigating the
murder for five days as of January 22, 2022, and had focused on Harris as a suspect.
Peters went to K.F.’s apartment at approximately 10:30 a.m. to view her surveillance
footage. That footage showed the suspect walking towards Apartment No. 3 wearing the
same distinctive clothing as in other footage from the murder as well as on multiple other
addresses’ security footage. More footage showed the suspect with a generator matching
the one taken from the murder scene earlier that morning headed towards Apartment
No. 3. The footage then showed that person headed back to the murder scene still in the
distinctive clothing less than 30 minutes before the murder. Peters had collected
surveillance footage essentially tracing the suspect’s movements from the murder scene
to Apartment No. 3.
Peters connected Harris to Apartment No. 3 and confirmed Harris’s height and
weight were consistent with the suspect from the video. Peters also suspected Harris
because of a jail phone call by Harris’s girlfriend’s mother suggesting Harris had
committed the murder. K.F. confirmed Harris lived at Apartment No. 3 and the last time
she had seen him was the day of the murder.
Peters was not initially aware that Lopez was conducting a separate investigation.
Lopez told Peters that he had possibly located clothing in the kitchen worn by the
suspect, and Peters left to draft a search warrant. He asked the deputies to secure the
apartment pending the issuance of the warrant. Peters would have sought the search
warrant even without the discovery of the clothing because they had already connected
Harris to the apartment, the jail call suggested he committed the murder, and the video
footage traced the suspect in the same clothing from the murder to the apartment. If
Lopez had not been there, Peters would have asked patrol to secure the apartment
pending the issuance of the warrant.
10
3. The Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court denied Harris’s motion. The court started by determining that
Harris had abandoned the apartment and therefore did not have a reasonable expectation
of privacy therein. Alternatively, the court determined the deputies lawfully entered the
apartment due to exigent circumstances as a result of the call for a welfare check on the
dogs, poor appearance of the dogs, mattress with blood, and knives in plain view from the
broken window. However, the trial court determined that the exigent circumstances
ended when the deputies concluded their protective sweep and reported there were no
more dogs or people inside the apartment. Accordingly, the deputies had no basis to
remain inside the apartment without a warrant, although they had the right to secure the
premises pending a warrant. Nevertheless, deputies remained in the apartment and found
the clothes.
The court further concluded that after excising the information derived from the
illicit search, there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant. Therefore, the
court denied Harris’s motion under either the independent source or inevitable discovery
doctrines.
4. The Jury’s Verdict and Harris’s Sentence
The jury found Harris guilty of murder (count one) and found true the special
circumstances. The jury also found Harris guilty of being a felon in possession of a
firearm (count three) and three of the misdemeanor tampering with a vehicle counts. The
jury found Harris not guilty of the burglary (count two), and the trial court dismissed two
of the misdemeanor counts on the People’s motion for insufficient evidence.
At a bifurcated court trial, the trial court found the prior strike allegation true. The
court sentenced Harris to a term of life without the possibility of parole for count one plus
25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. The court imposed and stayed a four-year
term on count three under Penal Code section 654 and declined to impose any additional
time for Harris’s misdemeanor convictions. Harris declined the trial court’s express
11
invitation “to be heard” prior to the pronouncement of sentence, and following that
pronouncement, he did not object or otherwise argue that the trial court should have
stayed the firearm enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 1385.
Harris timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
1. Motion to Suppress Evidence
Harris contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
by: (1) treating deputies’ postexigency sweep as “reasonable” and (2) admitting the
evidence under either the inevitable discovery or independent source doctrines. While
there may be merit to Harris’s first contention given that the trial court concluded the
exigency justifying the warrantless entry expired prior to the discovery of the distinctive
clothing, we conclude he has failed to demonstrate the trial court otherwise erred in
denying his motion.
“In ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court is charged with (1) finding the
historical facts; (2) selecting the applicable rule of law; and (3) applying the latter to the
former to determine whether or not the rule of law as applied to the established facts has
been violated. [Citation.] On appeal, we review the trial court’s resolution of the first
inquiry, which involves questions of fact, under the deferential substantial-evidence
standard, but subject the second and third inquiries to independent review.” (People v.
Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 345.)
As a preliminary matter, we note Harris fails to challenge the trial court’s
alternative basis for its ruling denying his motion to suppress evidence: that Harris
lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment because it had been
abandoned. Harris’s failure to challenge this alternative basis alone justifies the denial of
his claim of error. (See, e.g., People v. Parson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 345 [individual
who abandons property has no expectation of privacy therein for purposes of the 4th
12
Amend.]; People v. Weiss (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1073, 1076-1077 (Weiss) [reviewing court
accepts unchallenged determinations of the lower court].) Putting this failure aside,
Harris has also failed to show the trial court erred in applying the independent source
exception to this case.
“The Fourth Amendment provides ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated … .’ (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) This guarantee has been incorporated into
the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution and is applicable to the states.
[Citation.] A similar guarantee against unreasonable government searches is set forth in
the state Constitution (Cal. Const., art. I, § 13) but, since voter approval of Proposition 8
in June 1982, state and federal claims relating to exclusion of evidence on grounds of
unreasonable search and seizure are measured by the same standard. [Citations.] ‘Our
state Constitution thus forbids the courts to order the exclusion of evidence at trial as a
remedy for an unreasonable search and seizure unless that remedy is required by the
federal Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.’ ” (People v.
Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, 829-830.)
Under the Fourth Amendment, warrantless searches of a home are presumptively
unreasonable (People v. Superior Court (Corbett) (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 670, 680),
subject to certain exceptions. In this case, the trial court determined, and Harris does not
challenge, that Lopez and his partner lawfully entered the apartment through a broken
window due to exigent circumstances and in response to a neighbor’s call reporting the
abandonment of four injured and distressed dogs. Finding only three dogs (two in the
apartment and one in garage), the court determined that the deputies conducted a
“protective sweep” of the apartment to look for the last dog and later informed animal
control officers that they were “100 percent sure” there were no other animals; following
this sweep, the trial court determined the exigency justifying the warrantless entry ended.
13
(See, e.g., People v. Duncan (1986) 42 Cal.3d 91, 99 [justification for warrantless entry
lasts only as long as the exigency necessitating it].)
Harris challenges the search that followed wherein the deputies discovered
clothing consistent with those worn by the suspect in a black bag in the kitchen.
However, as Harris acknowledges, “[i]t has long been established that even if a criminal
investigation involved some illegal conduct, courts will admit evidence derived from an
‘independent source.’ ” (Weiss, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1077.) In instances where a later
obtained search warrant contains illegally obtained information, the appropriate
“independent source” inquiry is to excise the illegally obtained information and
determine whether the officers would have sought the warrant without it and whether the
remaining information supplies probable cause. If all of these circumstances exist, the
warrant is valid. (Id. at pp. 1074-1075, 1082.) We find that to be the case here.
In this case, at the same time that the deputies were resolving the exigency
involving the dogs at Apartment No. 3, other detectives investigating the murder were at
a neighbor’s apartment reviewing surveillance footage that showed a distinctively dressed
individual consistent with Harris’s height and weight in front of Harris’s apartment
carrying items consistent with those taken from the murder victim. Those detectives had
previously tied Harris to Apartment No. 3, had a jail call suggesting he had committed
the murder, and tracked the individual who murdered G.M. from the scene of the murder
to the front of Apartment No. 3 through security footage. As set out at length, ante,
Peters’s affidavit in support of the search warrant meticulously laid out this evidence, and
we conclude that even without evidence of Lopez’s observation of the distinct clothing,
the warrant amply establishes the probable cause to search the apartment. (See, e.g.,
People v. Gesner (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 581, 590 [judging sufficiency of probable cause
under a totality of the circumstances and asking whether the magistrate had information
establishing “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place”].)
14
Moreover, the testimony established that Peters would have sought the warrant to
search Apartment No. 3 even if Lopez had not been investigating at the apartment that
day or discovered the distinctive clothing in that apartment during the illicit search.
Under these circumstances, the independent source exception has been established under
Weiss, and the trial court rightfully denied Harris’s motion to suppress. (Weiss, supra,
20 Cal.4th at pp. 1074-1075, 1082.)
2. The Firearm Enhancement
Harris complains the trial court erred by failing to dismiss his firearm
enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)) pursuant to Penal Code section 1385,
subdivision (c) given that his enhancement has resulted in a sentence that is over 20
years. Acknowledging this court has previously determined in People v. Torres (2025)
113 Cal.App.5th 88 that Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(C) does not apply if
the base sentence is already over 20 years, Harris asks that we revisit this decision.
Harris also asks that we forgive his failure to raise this issue in the trial court.
We agree with the People that Harris’s failure to raise this argument in the trial
court has forfeited it on appeal. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375-376;
People v. Torres, supra, 113 Cal.App.5th at p. 92.) Moreover, Harris has not shown the
failure of his counsel to object was prejudicial as we see no reason to revisit our
conclusion in Torres that the mitigating circumstance found in Penal Code section 1385,
subdivision (c)(2)(C) does not apply to sentences with a base term already exceeding 20
years. (Torres, at p. 93.) Here, the trial court sentenced Harris to life without the
possibility of parole for the murder, and as such, his sentence already exceeded 20 years.
Accordingly, this claim fails.
15
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
EARL, P. J.
We concur:
/s/
HULL, J.
/s/
KRAUSE, J.
16