My question involves criminal law for the state of: California
Defendant and three co-participants commit kidnapping for ransom early 2000's in California. Defendant and one juvenile defendant detained and sentenced in California, the other two in Tijuana, Mexico. One victim is injured with a knife (bodily harm) by a co-participant during two instances. At the start when victim attempted to flee (a cut on arm), and during a second attempt to flee, defendant and co-participant chase after victim and is detained. Co-participant cuts victim with knife. According to trial transcripts, defendant from the start said victims wouldn't be hurt; however, co-participant does so regardless (this co-participant is one of the ones detained in Mexico).
Defendant was the only one detained in USA and is sentenced with one count of kidnapping for ransom with bodily harm and given LWOP.
Jury were not given the instruction below to prove bodily harm, they were only given vague CALJIC 9.53 instructions. The issue here is of whether defendant could reasonably foresee these knife injuries (I don't believe he could have as they had agreed victims would not be harmed and defendant verbally communicated this to the victims and co-participants) and of proximate cause. Reason I don't think there was proximate cause from defendant is because chasing and detaining victim was not a cause of the injury as that could have been done without injuring victim and if he would have stayed behind (which defendant actually says he did) and only co-participant chases victim, co-participant would still have injured victim himself regardless.
Was this an erroneous sentence? Shouldn't it have been Life with Parole? The bodily harm and the burden of proof by the people (Jury) to include bodily harm on that count was not objected by defense.
Can a post conviction relief attorney fight this in the 9th circuit and supreme court for re-sentence?
Unfortunately, this was not properly fought on appeal by defendant as state issued appellate defense had no clue and did not raise this issue.
California Criminal Law 1202
[If you find the defendant guilty of kidnapping for (ransom [,]/ [or] reward[,]/ [or] extortion), you must then decide whether the People have proved the additional allegation that the defendant (caused the kidnapped person to (die/suffer bodily harm)/ [or] intentionally confined the kidnapped person in a way that created a substantial risk of death).
[Bodily harm means any substantial physical injury resulting from the use of force that is more than the force necessary to commit kidnapping.]
[The defendant caused ______'s<insert name of allegedly kidnapped person> (death/bodily harm) if:
1. A reasonable person in the defendant's position would have foreseen that the defendant's use of force or fear could begin a chain of events likely to result in ______'s <insert name of allegedly kidnapped person> (death/bodily harm);
2. The defendant's use of force or fear was a direct and substantial factor in causing ______'s<insert name of allegedly kidnapped person> (death/bodily harm);
AND
3. ______'s<insert name of allegedly kidnapped person> (death/bodily harm) would not have happened if the defendant had not used force or fear to hold or detain <insert name of allegedly kidnapped person>.
A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it need not have been the only factor that caused ______'s <insert name of allegedly kidnapped person> (death/ bodily harm).]
The People have the burden of proving this allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. If the People have not met this burden, you must find that the allegation has not been proved.]

