People v. Arredondo
21 Cal. App. 5th 493
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Victim Fernando Renteria was lured to a house, beaten, bound, placed in his car trunk, driven to a field, shot and throat‑slit; several participants (including Arredondo and Ramirez) were arrested and tried.
- Prosecution’s case relied on a cooperating codefendant (Oporta), other participant testimony, jailhouse admissions, and physical evidence; gang experts identified some defendants as gang members but found no known inter‑gang cooperation.
- At trial Arredondo’s counsel conceded Arredondo was guilty of felony murder but argued special‑circumstance robbery did not apply and attacked Oporta’s credibility about who fired the gun.
- During opening and rebuttal the prosecutor repeatedly called defendants and participants “cockroaches” and urged the jury to view them as an ongoing community threat; defense objections were overruled.
- Jury convicted both defendants of first‑degree murder, found robbery and kidnapping special circumstances true, found the murders gang‑related under §186.22(b), and found firearm enhancements as to Arredondo; sentences included LWOP plus enhancements.
- On appeal the court affirmed most convictions but reversed the gang findings and remanded the §12022.53(d) firearm enhancement for resentencing under SB 620’s §12022.53(h) discretion; ineffective‑assistance claims were left for collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance — counsel’s concession of felony murder | Concession was a defensible tactic to preserve credibility and minimize exposure given overwhelming evidence | Concession prejudiced Arredondo and was unreasonable because it undercut defenses and had no tangible benefit | Court declines to resolve on direct appeal; leaves claim open for collateral proceedings where counsel can explain tactical choice |
| 2. Prosecutorial misconduct — repeated “cockroaches” epithets and guilt‑by‑association theme | Epithets were forceful but permissible rhetorical devices given the evidence | Language improperly urged guilt by association and inflamed the jury | Misconduct found; but because evidence of murder and special circumstances was overwhelming, misconduct was harmless as to murder and special‑circumstance findings but not harmless as to gang allegations |
| 3. Gang‑related enhancements (§186.22(b) and §12022.53(e)) | Gang assertions supported by gang expert testimony and participants’ admissions | Evidence of benefit to a gang was weak; prosecutor’s collective‑guilt theme improperly influenced jury | Gang findings reversed and remanded for retrial because prosecutor’s misconduct likely tainted those jury findings |
| 4. Retroactive application of SB 620 (§12022.53(h)) and firearm enhancement | SB 620 gives trial courts discretion to strike firearm enhancements and applies to nonfinal cases | — (defendant requested benefit of new law) | Court accepts retroactivity inference for SB 620; reverses and remands firearm enhancement so trial court may decide whether to strike under §12022.53(h) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lucas, 12 Cal.4th 415 (trial counsel may concede guilt to some charges as a tactical choice)
- People v. Tully, 54 Cal.4th 952 (prosecutor may use vivid epithets but must not inflame or argue guilt by association)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (prosecutor’s duty to seek justice, not merely convictions)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑error standard for constitutional errors)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (not every crime by gang members is for the benefit of the gang)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (inference that ameliorative penal statutes apply to nonfinal cases)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (limits and frames Estrada inference)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (clarifies application of Estrada and retroactivity analysis)