Johnson v. Super. Ct.
B266421
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2016Background
- Cleamon Johnson was convicted in 1997 of two first‑degree murders (Beroit, Loggins) and sentenced to death; the California Supreme Court reversed those convictions in 2011 and remanded for retrial.
- After reversal but before retrial, the People filed a new information adding three homicide counts (Sutton, Jones, Mosley), one attempted murder (Coleman), and gang enhancements tied to the existing and new counts; many underlying facts dated to early 1990s gang violence involving the 89 Family Swans.
- Johnson moved to dismiss the newly charged offenses as vindictive prosecution; the trial court found a prima facie showing of vindictiveness but concluded the People rebutted the presumption and denied dismissal.
- This writ petition challenged that denial; the Court of Appeal reviewed de novo whether a presumption of vindictiveness arose and whether the People met their heavy rebuttal burden under California law.
- The court held the presumption was triggered by filing the new counts after Johnson’s successful appeal, and concluded the People failed to rebut as to Jones, Mosley, and Coleman (those counts must be dismissed), but successfully rebutted as to Sutton (that count may stand).
- The court also found the post‑appeal addition of gang enhancements to the Beroit and Loggins counts raised a presumption of vindictiveness and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the People can rebut that presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Johnson) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether filing new charges after a successful appeal raises a presumption of vindictive prosecution | New counts added to the pending retrial were in apparent response to Johnson’s successful appeal and thus raise a presumption of vindictiveness | No presumption because the new charges concern different conduct and do not increase punishment (death already exposed) | Presumption arises where new charges are added post‑appeal under circumstances that would appear vindictive to other defendants (totality of circumstances test) |
| 2. Whether People rebutted the presumption for each added homicide/attempted‑murder count | People must show objective change in evidence/circumstances and that new information could not reasonably have been found earlier | People claimed new witness statements/context and that reversal changed the practical need to re‑investigate | Rebuttal failed as to Jones, Mosley, Coleman (insufficient explanation or timely discovery); succeeded as to Sutton (Leon’s testimony became available only after his plea and thus was legitimately new) |
| 3. Whether addition of gang enhancements to original counts was vindictive | Gang enhancements were added only after appeal; this raises presumption of vindictiveness | Gang evidence was always relevant and admissible; enhancements reflect appropriate reappraisal | Addition of gang allegations raised a presumption; trial court must hold evidentiary hearing for People to rebut |
| 4. Scope of "increased charges" and role of relatedness/double jeopardy | Presumption can be triggered even when new counts concern different acts/victims if circumstances make the timing appear retaliatory | Presumption should be limited: only when charges increase punishment or concern same conduct (joinder/double jeopardy focus) | Court adopts a totality‑of‑circumstances appearance test; relatedness and potential increased punishment are relevant but not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (Sup. Ct.) (prophylactic protection against increased punishment after exercise of appeal rights)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (Sup. Ct.) (increased charges after defendant invoked procedural right raises due process concerns)
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (Sup. Ct.) (charging discretion higher pretrial; post‑conviction increases are suspect)
- Twiggs v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.3d 360 (Cal.) (California presumption‑of‑vindictiveness framework)
- In re Bower, 38 Cal.3d 865 (Cal.) (prosecution must show objective change in evidence and inability to have discovered it earlier to rebut presumption)
- People v. Ledesma, 39 Cal.4th 641 (Cal.) (discusses vindictiveness principles in capital cases)
- United States v. Krezdorn, 718 F.2d 1360 (5th Cir.) (totality‑of‑circumstances/appearance test for vindictiveness)