P. v. Lopez-Figueroa CA6 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/28/13 P. v. Lopez-Figueroa CA6
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
    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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          H037723
    (Monterey County
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   Super. Ct. No. SS091553)
    v.
    EZEKIEL LOPEZ-FIGUEROA,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Defendant Ezekiel Lopez-Figueroa was convicted by jury trial of first degree
    1
    murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), assault
    with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and active participation in a criminal street gang
    (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found true gang allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1))
    as to the murder, attempted murder, and assault counts, firearm allegations (§ 12022.53,
    subds. (c) & (d)) as to the murder and attempted murder counts, and an allegation that the
    attempted murder had been committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation
    (§ 664). Defendant was committed to state prison to serve a term of 50 years to life for
    the murder count consecutive to a life term plus 20 years for the attempted murder count,
    and a consecutive eight-month term for the gang count. On appeal, he contends that he
    was deprived of due process because the information failed to allege that the attempted
    1
    Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
    murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. We find no basis to disturb the
    judgment. However, we direct the trial court to correct a clerical error on the abstract of
    judgment.
    I. Background
    The facts are not relevant to the sole issue on appeal. Defendant fired seven shots
    at a boy whose young sister was standing next to him. The girl died, and the boy was
    2
    wounded. Defendant made a videotaped confession to the police in which he admitted
    that he had aimed his gun at the brother and knew the girl was next to him.
    Defendant waived preliminary examination. The November 2009 original
    information did not include an allegation that the attempted murder was willful,
    3
    deliberate, and premeditated. The trial briefs filed by the defense and the prosecution on
    October 21, 2011 each proposed that the court instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 601.
    CALCRIM No. 601 is the instruction on the allegation that an attempted murder was
    willful, deliberate, and premeditated. The prosecution‟s trial brief also included proposed
    verdict forms. The proposed verdict form for the attempted murder count included this
    special allegation. It read: “We, the Jury, further find the allegation that the crime was
    WILLFUL, DELIBERATE, AND PREMEDITATED to be [TRUE/NOT TRUE].” The
    amended information filed on October 24, 2011, like the original information, did not
    mention this special allegation.
    Jury selection began on October 24, 2011. The prosecution made its opening
    statement on October 26. In her opening statement, the prosecutor said: “We will prove
    that this was first degree murder, attempted murder, with premeditation and deliberation,
    2
    At trial, defendant testified that he had lied to the police, was not present when the
    shooting occurred, and had nothing to do with the shooting.
    3
    We will sometimes refer to this as the special allegation.
    2
    and that it was done for the benefit of the Norteno street gang.” The prosecution‟s case-
    in-chief was completed on October 28, and the defense also presented its case that day.
    The prosecution‟s rebuttal was the next court day, October 31.
    At the instruction conference on October 31, 2011, the court stated that it would
    instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 601. Defendant‟s trial counsel did not object. The
    court instructed the jury, prior to arguments, with CALCRIM No. 601 on the “additional
    allegation that the attempted murder was done willfully, and with deliberation and
    premeditation.” In her opening argument to the jury, the prosecutor told the jury: “In
    attempted murder, . . . I need to show specific intent to kill, that it was deliberate, it was
    willful and it was premeditated.”
    The jury found defendant guilty of all counts and found all of the allegations true
    including the allegation that the attempted murder had been willful, deliberate, and
    premeditated. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life on the murder count, a
    consecutive 25 years to life term for the attached firearm enhancement, a consecutive life
    term on the attempted murder count plus a consecutive 20-year term for the attached
    4
    firearm enhancement, and a consecutive eight-month term for the gang count. The court
    imposed and stayed under section 654 a term for the assault count. Defendant timely
    filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
    II. Analysis
    Defendant‟s sole contention on appeal is that the prosecution‟s failure to allege in
    the information that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated
    violated his right to due process and precludes the imposition of a life term for that count.
    4
    The abstract of judgment fails to include the gang count. We will direct the trial
    court to prepare an amended abstract to correct this clerical error.
    3
    “[I]f the crime attempted is willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder, as
    defined in Section 189, the person guilty of that attempt shall be punished by
    imprisonment in the state prison for life with the possibility of parole. . . . The additional
    term provided in this section for attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder
    shall not be imposed unless the fact that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and
    premeditated is charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted or found to be true by
    the trier of fact.” (§ 664, subd. (a).)
    Three cases are pertinent to this issue: People v. Mancebo (2002) 
    27 Cal.4th 735
    (Mancebo); People v. Arias (2010) 
    182 Cal.App.4th 1009
     (Arias); and People v. Houston
    (2012) 
    54 Cal.4th 1186
    , 1225 (Houston). Defendant claims that Arias is “directly on
    point,” while the Attorney General maintains that Houston “is closer to the facts” here.
    We begin by examining Mancebo, as it served as the primary basis for the analysis
    in Arias. The jury in Mancebo found true two “One Strike” circumstances as to each of
    two sex crimes against different victims. As to each crime, one of the circumstances was
    gun use. The jury also found true a gun use enhancement allegation as to each crime. A
    “multiple victims” circumstance was not alleged or found true by the jury. (Mancebo,
    supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 738.) The One Strike statute precluded the gun use from being
    used as the basis for an enhancement if it was used as a One Strike circumstance. To
    avoid this prohibition, the trial court at sentencing substituted for the gun use
    circumstance a “multiple victim” circumstance that had neither been alleged in the
    information nor found true by the jury. (Mancebo, at pp. 738-739.) The defendant
    challenged the imposition of the gun use enhancements on the ground that the multiple
    victim circumstance had been neither pleaded nor proved. The California Supreme Court
    agreed. “[N]o factual allegation in the information or pleading in the statutory language
    informed defendant that if he was convicted of the underlying charged offenses, the court
    would consider his multiple convictions as a basis for One Strike sentencing under
    section 667.61, subdivision (a). Thus, the pleading was inadequate because it failed to
    4
    put defendant on notice that the People, for the first time at sentencing, would seek to use
    the multiple victim circumstance to secure indeterminate One Strike terms under section
    667.61, subdivision (a) and use the circumstance of gun use to secure additional
    enhancements under section 12022.5(a).” (Mancebo, at p. 745.)
    The defendant in Arias challenged the imposition of life terms for two attempted
    murder convictions on the ground that his right to due process had been violated due to
    the fact that the information had failed to allege that the attempted murders had been
    willful, deliberate, and premeditated. (Arias, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1016.) The
    trial court instructed the jury on the special allegation. (Arias, at p. 1017.) However,
    “[t]he jury‟s attempted murder verdicts did not include special findings as to
    premeditation and deliberation, but found „first degree attempted murder‟ as to both
    5
    victims.” (Ibid.) The Attorney General claimed that the defendant had forfeited the
    claim by failing to object to the information below. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal, relying
    on Mancebo, rejected the Attorney General‟s argument. (Arias, at pp. 1017-1018.)
    “Here, neither the information nor any pleading gave defendant notice that he was
    potentially subject to the enhanced punishment provision for attempted murder under
    section 664, subdivision (a).” (Arias, at p. 1019.)
    The final case in this trio is Houston. In Houston, the indictment failed to allege
    that the 10 attempted murder counts were willful, deliberate, and premeditated.
    (Houston, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 1225-1226.) After the defense had presented one day
    of its case to the jury, the court provided counsel with a “preliminary draft” of the verdict
    forms. This draft included in the verdict forms the special allegation for the attempted
    5
    “California law does not define attempted murder in terms of degrees. Rather,
    section 664, subdivision (a) provides that the punishment for attempted murder can be
    increased from the prescribed maximum determinate term to a life sentence when it is
    pleaded and proved that the murder attempted was willful, deliberate, and premeditated.”
    (Arias, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at p. 1011, fn. 2.)
    5
    murder counts. (Houston, at p. 1226.) The court told the attorneys that it understood that
    the prosecution “ „is intending to charge premeditated attempted murder‟ ” and told them
    to “ „tell me now‟ ” if “ „that’s not right.‟ ” The trial court also pointed out that this “ „type
    of attempted murder . . . [is] punished by life imprisonment rather than five, seven,
    nine.‟ ” (Houston, at p. 1226.) A week later, the court told the attorneys that it would
    include the special allegation in its verdict forms. The court instructed the jury on the
    special allegation, and the defense did not object. (Ibid.) The jury found the special
    allegations true, and life terms were imposed for the attempted murder counts. (Ibid.)
    On appeal, the defendant challenged the propriety of life terms for the attempted
    murder counts because the prosecution had violated his due process rights by failing to
    plead the special allegation. The California Supreme Court found that, due to the trial
    court‟s statements regarding the special allegation, the defendant had the opportunity to
    object below and had forfeited the claim by failing to do so. (Houston, supra, 54 Cal.4th
    at pp. 1226-1227.) “Had defendant raised a timely objection to the jury instructions and
    verdict forms at any of these stages of the trial on the ground that the indictment did not
    allege that the attempted murders were deliberate and premeditated, the court could have
    heard arguments on whether to permit the prosecutor to amend the indictment.
    [Citation.] If the trial court was inclined to permit amendment, defendant could have
    requested a continuance to permit him to prepare a defense. [Citation.] On the facts
    here, defendant received adequate notice of the sentence he faced, and the jury made an
    express finding that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. A
    timely objection to the adequacy of the indictment would have provided an opportunity to
    craft an appropriate remedy. Because defendant had notice of the sentence he faced and
    did not raise an objection in the trial court, he has forfeited this claim on appeal.”
    (Houston, at pp. 1227-1228.)
    While declining to express an opinion on whether Arias was correct, the California
    Supreme Court distinguished Arias. “[I]t is unclear when the trial court [in Arias] issued
    6
    its proposed jury instructions and verdict forms to the parties and whether this issue was
    discussed. In contrast, the trial court here actually notified defendant of the possible
    sentence he faced before his case was submitted to the jury, and defendant had sufficient
    opportunity to object to the indictment and request additional time to formulate a defense.
    In addition, the jury was properly instructed and made an express finding that the
    attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated.” (Houston, supra, 54
    Cal.4th at p. 1229.)
    The only question here is whether this case is governed by Arias or by Houston.
    6
    We agree with the Attorney General that Houston controls here.
    Defendant in this case had a great deal more notice of, and therefore opportunity
    to object to, the prosecution‟s plan to prove that the attempted murder was willful,
    deliberate, and premeditated than did the defendants in either Houston or Arias. In
    Houston, the defense gained this knowledge during the defense case. In Arias, the
    defense gained this knowledge at the instruction conference. Here, the defense was well
    aware of the prosecution‟s intent to prove that the attempted murder was willful,
    deliberate, and premeditated before the trial even began. Both the defense and the
    prosecution included the instructions on the special allegation in their instructional
    requests in their trial briefs. And the prosecution also included in its trial brief a
    proposed verdict form for the attempted murder count that expressly included the special
    allegation. Not only that, but the prosecutor expressly stated in her opening statement
    that she was pursuing a true finding on the special allegation. This early notice of the
    prosecution‟s intent to pursue a true finding on the special allegation was more than
    adequate to provide the defense with an opportunity to object based on the special
    6
    Defendant also argues that Houston “was wrongly decided,” but we need not
    address this argument because we are bound by Houston. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v.
    Superior Court (1962) 
    57 Cal.2d 450
    , 455.)
    7
    allegation‟s absence from the amended information and to seek additional time to prepare
    to contest it if necessary.
    An additional point upon which this case is like Houston and unlike Arias is that
    here, as in Houston, the “proof” requirement of section 664, subdivision (a) was not
    violated. The jury made an express true finding that the attempted murder was willful,
    deliberate, and premeditated. In contrast, in Arias the jury instead found only that the
    crime was “first degree attempted murder,” and there was no indication that the jury was
    instructed that a “first degree” finding was the equivalent of a finding that the attempted
    murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated.
    Defendant suggests that Houston is distinguishable because the trial court in
    Houston expressly mentioned that the special allegation increased the sentence to a life
    term, while there was no mention here by the trial court of the life term that a true finding
    on the special allegation might trigger. This is a distinction without a difference. We
    must presume that defendant‟s trial counsel was well aware of the implications of the
    special allegation and competently advised him thereof. Defendant does not identify any
    legal basis for requiring an information to expressly identify the potential punishment
    attributable to an offense or allegation. Since a proper information charging the special
    allegation would not have had to include mention of the punishment to which the special
    allegation might lead, the omission of the special allegation did not result in defendant
    being deprived of due process or of the opportunity to object below.
    III. Disposition
    The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended
    abstract of judgment that includes the omitted gang count and the eight-month
    consecutive sentence that the court imposed for it. The court shall forward a certified
    copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
    8
    _______________________________
    Mihara, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    _____________________________
    Elia, Acting P. J.
    _____________________________
    Márquez, J.
    9
    

Document Info

Docket Number: H037723

Filed Date: 6/28/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014