California v. Kopp
Annotate this CaseA jury convicted appellants Jason Hernandez and Christi Kopp of conspiracy to commit murder (count 3), conspiracy to dissuade a witness (count 4), and furnishing a controlled substance (count 5). The jury also convicted Hernandez of assault with a deadly weapon (count 1) and assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (count 2). In a bifurcated proceeding, Hernandez admitted, and the trial court found true, he was previously convicted of a violent and serious felony. The court ultimately sentenced Hernandez to prison for 81 years to life. The court sentenced Kopp to prison for four years plus 25 years to life. Pertinent here, the Court of Appeal agreed with appellants that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury to determine whether there existed one or two conspiracies. As such, Appellants' convictions under count 4 were reversed and their respective sentences vacated. The Court rejected Hernandez's other substantive arguments in his opening brief as well as Kopp's argument that section 654 mandated the trial court to stay her sentence under count 5. While this case was pending, Hernandez successfully moved to file a supplemental brief. He argued that Senate Bill No. 1393 amended Penal Code sections 667 (a) and 1385 to allow the trial court discretion to strike an enhancement. Hernandez maintains, and the People agreed, this matter should have been remanded to allow the superior court to resentence Hernandez consistent with this change in the law. Because the Court of Appeal vacated Hernandez's sentence as a result of reversing his conviction under count 4, the trial court could exercise its discretion under Senate Bill No. 1393 during resentencing. While on remand, the Court ordered the trial court to hold an ability to pay hearing for both Appellants consistent with the dictates of this opinion. Additionally, the trial court could consider Appellants' argument that the punitive fines violate the excessive fines clause, if that issue was raised.
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.