“ Penal Code section 189 defines first degree murder as: “All murder which is
perpetrated by . . . any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing . . . .”
First degree murder requires evidence of deliberation, defined as a “ ‘careful weighing of
considerations in forming a course of action; ‘premeditation’ means thought over in
advance. [Citations.] ’ [Citation.] ” (People v. Solomon (2010) ”

“ Mr. Sohus. Nevertheless, the prosecutor represented, and the trial court agreed, that the
chainsaw evidence was relevant “to show that at the time these actions were all occurring
in 1985, the defendant’s mental state was such that he was trying to figure out how to
dispose of things such as bodies by asking about drums of chemicals, by borrowing chain
saws, which he normally wouldn’t use in his normal habits and customs.” In fact,
witnesses testified they never saw defendant operating power tools or doing any sort of
physical labor, not even gardening. ”

“ Defendant
returned the chainsaw to his friend about a month after police took Mrs. Sohus’s sister’s
missing person report. The jury could reasonably infer that, as part of the scheme to
murder the Sohuses, defendant was planning how to dispose of the Sohuses’ remains.
Although the prosecution did not try to prove defendant actually used the chainsaw to
dismember Mr. Sohus’s body, the jury could have reasonably inferred that from the
evidence that the lower half of the body was discovered inside a fiberglass drum. ”

“ Respondent concedes error as to
the parole revocation fine, the enhancements, and the exclusion of conduct credits, but
argues that defendant received custody credits to which he was not entitled.
We agree that defendant’s custody credits were not properly calculated, and
remand the case so the trial court can make the necessary factual findings. We also stay
one deadly weapon enhancement, and strike the parole revocation fine. We otherwise
affirm the judgment. ”

“ You’re here today to decide one
issue: did he kill John Sohus? [¶] And it is absolutely proper to consider that Linda
Sohus is dead in evaluating all this evidence, and that [defendant] killed her.” On this
record, the jury could fairly conclude that defendant killed the couple, and secreted their
bodies away in different locations, which further supports the finding that Mr. Sohus’s
murder was premeditated and deliberate. (People v. Solomon, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 815
[the killing of multiple victims supports an inference of premeditation and deliberation] .) ”

“ Defendant was sentenced to 27 years to life in state prison, including an indeterminate
term of 25 years to life for the murder, and one year for each deadly weapon
enhancement.
Defendant appeals, claiming insufficiency of the evidence of premeditation and
deliberation for the first degree murder conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, and
sentencing errors. Defendant does not contend insufficient evidence supports his
conviction of murder; he only claims he should not have been convicted of murder in the
first degree. ”

“ We find substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that defendant
acted with premeditation and deliberation. The prosecution’s theory of the case was that
defendant convinced John and Linda Sohus that they were going on a top secret
government mission, but after creating the illusion that they were leaving San Marino to
start new lives elsewhere, he killed them. Just before their disappearance, John and
Linda Sohus spoke to close friends about taking on secret government work in satellites. ”

“ When all evidence in this case points
you to the fact that there’s only one person who’s a mastermind. Not Linda.”
Defendant did not immediately object that the argument constituted misconduct.
The following morning, when the trial resumed, defendant objected to the prosecutor’s
statements that defense counsel had the “gall” to blame Mrs. Sohus for her husband’s
murder. Counsel objected on the basis that the remark was “inappropriate,” and that the
remark implied that “defense lawyers don’t have a right, essentially, to present a zealous
and effective defense. . . .” ”

“ She
designated Site A as the area where the bag containing the skull was located. Site B was
the fiberglass drum. Inside the drum was the lower half of a human body in jeans. A pair
of shoes was found under the drum. The area to the left of the drum was designated as Site C, and included plastic bags containing a human torso covered in a shirt. Ms. Daye
collected the evidence and transported it to the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office.
Senior criminalist Manuel Munoz with the Coroner’s Office separated the physical
evidence from the human remains. ”

“ The jury found true that defendant used two deadly and dangerous weapons in the
murder of Mr. Sohus. (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b) (1) .) When sentencing defendant,
the trial court imposed two 1-year enhancements. Defendant contends, and respondent
concedes, that only one enhancement may be imposed.
Penal Code section 1170.1 provides that when two deadly weapon enhancements
apply to a single crime, only one enhancement may be imposed. (See Pen. Code,
§ 1170.1, subd. (f) ; Stats. 1982, ch. 1551, § 1.5; see also People v. Espinoza (1983)
140
Cal. App. 3d 564
, 566.) ”

“ These three categories are merely a framework for appellate review; they
need not be present in some special combination or afforded special weight, nor are they
exhaustive. [Citation.] ” (People v. Booker (2011) ”

“ However, respondent maintains that defendant erroneously received a “windfall”
of custody credits for time he was in custody for another offense, and that his custody
credits must be recalculated. We agree.
It is the trial court’s obligation to calculate the number of custody credits a
defendant is entitled to. (People v. Culpepper (1994)
24 Cal. ”

“ Ms. Coffman believed
the postcard’s brevity was out of character for her friend, who Ms. Coffman believed
would have told her why she was in France. Ms. Coffman was also surprised because
Mrs. Sohus never mentioned plans to travel overseas, and she and her husband did not
have the financial resources to do so. DNA from the stamp came from an unknown male;
Mr. Sohus and defendant were excluded as possible donors.
Mrs. Sohus’s employer, Ms. Marano, also received a postcard from France, which
stated “Hi Lydia. Not quite New York, but not bad. See you later, Linda and John.”
6
Ms. ”

“ Fares (1993) 16 Cal. App. 4th 954, 957-959.)
V. Parole Revocation Fine
Lastly, defendant contends the imposition of a $10,000 parole revocation fine was
improper, because the statute authorizing the parole revocation fine, Penal Code
section 1202.45, was not enacted until after his offense was committed. (See Stats. 1995,
ch. 313, § 6.) Respondent concedes the error, and we agree that the fine is improper.
(See People v. Callejas (2000)
85 Cal. ”

“ Detective Yankovich did not ask Detective Allen to make any further
efforts, so Detective Allen treated the case as closed.
==VII. Defendant’s Evasion of Law Enforcement==
According to Ms. Manabe, defendant decided not to flee to Europe. Instead, he
changed his appearance, wearing contact lenses, and changing his hair color. Defendant
engaged in other paranoid behavior. He left his job, would not be seen in public with
Ms. Manabe, stopped driving, never filled out official documents in his name, shredded the couple’s garbage and disposed of it in public places. ”

“ The couple also bought a new pickup truck. In
late January 1985, the couple visited with Mr. Sohus’s longtime friend, Patrick
Rayermann, and told him they intended to move, but wanted to stay nearby, given the
advancing age of Mr. Sohus’s mother. Mr. Rayermann did not sense any stress or
conflict between John and Linda Sohus. After this visit, Mr. Rayermann never heard
from them again.
In late January or early February 1985, the couple went to Susan Coffman’s home
to show her their new pickup truck. Mrs. Sohus and Ms. Coffman were longtime friends.
4
The couple told Ms. ”

“ He also refused to stop in Connecticut on car trips between
Boston and New York.
The couple had a daughter together in May 2001.
During this time, defendant introduced himself to others as Clark Rockefeller, and
said he owned Propulsion Physics Laboratory in Canada, and that his company had built
a satellite.
Ms. Boss was unhappy in the relationship because defendant did not work and was
generally unpleasant. In 2004, she told defendant she wanted to leave him. He
threatened that she would never see their daughter again if she left. Ms. ”