California v. Phea
Annotate this CaseDefendant Malanje Phea was found guilty of all counts in a 33-count information. Thirty-one of the counts charged defendant with sex offenses against one of his daughters and two other victims, each of whom was 16 years old or younger at the time of the offenses. In the other two counts defendant was convicted of furnishing a controlled substance to the daughter. At trial, two additional victims testified to uncharged acts of child molestation and sexual misconduct pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108. The trial court sentenced defendant to 46 years four months in prison. Challenging the sentence he received, on appeal defendant contended the trial court made multiple procedural errors. In the published portion of its decision, the Court of Appeal rejected defendant’s due process contentions and in doing so, concluded that reliance upon McKinney v. Rees, 993 F.2d 1378 (9th Cir. 1993) was misplaced because that case had no application in the context of section 1108 evidence. The Court also rejected defendant’s contention that CALCRIM No. 1191 concerning uncharged acts of sexual misconduct and the circumstantial evidence instructions conflicted and reduced the burden of proof. The Court vacated the sentences imposed on counts one and two and remanded the matter for resentencing on those counts, at which the trial court had the option of choosing impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. The Court of Appeal also directed the trial court at resentencing to clearly impose a court operations assessment and a criminal conviction assessment on all 33 counts. Otherwise, the Court affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.