Barriga v. Superior Court
142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 110
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Barriga was a passenger in a stolen Mustang later found to be involved in a carjacking; he was initially charged in a juvenile wardship with unlawful taking/driving, resisting a peace officer, and related counts, but not carjacking.
- Barriga pled in the juvenile case (Dec 2010) admitting resisting a peace officer; other counts were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement.
- A warrant to search Barriga’s cell phone, seized from the Mustang, revealed text messages implicating him in the carjacking.
- The People then charged Barriga with carjacking in criminal court; Barriga moved to dismiss under Penal Code section 654 and related grounds, but the motion was denied.
- Barriga petitioned for a writ of prohibition; the court concluded there was no substantial evidence of due diligence by the People to discover the text messages before the juvenile plea.
- The court granted the petition, finding the trial court erred in denying the criminal case; a writ of prohibition directing dismissal of the criminal case was issued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 654 bars the later criminal prosecution | Barriga | People | Yes; due diligence failed, triggering bar on subsequent prosecution |
| Whether the People acted with due diligence to discover the phone messages | Barriga | People | No substantial evidence of due diligence |
| Whether the Kellett exception could avoid the bar due to separate prosecutors or quick plea | Barriga | People | Kellett exception not applicable; same office and no due diligence found |
| Whether imputing knowledge of the incriminating messages to the People affects the analysis | Barriga | People | Constructive knowledge attributed; due diligence lacking |
Key Cases Cited
- Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 (Cal. 1960) (bar on multiple prosecutions is separate from multiple punishment)
- Kellett v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 822 (Cal. 1966) (joinder or single prosecution when same course of conduct involved)
- People v. Davis, 36 Cal.4th 510 (Cal. 2005) (due diligence exception to 654; government bears burden; due diligence question of fact)
- U.S. v. Aguilar, 849 F.2d 92 (3d Cir. 1988) (due diligence concept in double jeopardy context; burden on government)
- Daniel v. State, 189 P.3d 859 (Wyo. 2008) (definition of due diligence; prudent, fact-specific standard)