People v. Avila
57 Cal.App.5th 1134
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- In Feb. 2018 Rene Avila confronted street vendors at a freeway off-ramp, demanding money and saying the location was his “barrio”; when refused he crushed bags of oranges.
- Two vendors testified: one understood “barrio” as a gang reference and felt threatened; another saw Avila stomp and scatter oranges and heard him say “money.”
- A jury convicted Avila of attempted second‑degree robbery (count 1) and attempted extortion (count 2).
- At sentencing the trial court denied Avila’s Romero motion to strike three prior strikes and imposed a third‑strike sentence (25 years‑to‑life plus a 14‑year determinate term and violent‑offender credit classification).
- On appeal the court affirmed the convictions (unpublished portions) but found (published portion) that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Romero relief and that the sentence was cruel or unusual under the California Constitution, and remanded for resentencing with directions to strike two priors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of gang evidence / mistrial | The stray remark was volunteered by the witness, not solicited, and was not so prejudicial as to require a mistrial | The witness’s statement equating “barrio” with gang membership violated the court’s exclusion order and denied a fair trial; mistrial required | Denied mistrial; single, fleeting volunteered reference did not irreparably prejudice trial and defense declined a curative instruction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted extortion | Demand for money + crushing vendor’s oranges amounted to a threat or use of fear sufficient for attempted extortion | No sufficient evidence of threat or force; translator issues and crushing occurred after refusal so no attempt to induce consent by fear | Conviction affirmed; substantial evidence supported that Avila used force/fear (context and conduct) to attempt extortion |
| Romero motion to strike priors | Priors and Avila’s record support denial (recidivist, victimizing vulnerable vendors) | Priors were remote, committed as a youth, and Avila’s drug history and subsequent conduct mitigate; court should strike priors in furtherance of justice | Abuse of discretion: trial court failed to consider youth/ remoteness/mitigating factors; remand to strike two prior strikes and resentence |
| Cruel or unusual punishment (Cal. Const., art. I, §17) | Three Strikes sentence is statutorily authorized and reflects recidivist punishment | Life sentence for nonviolent conduct (squashing oranges) is grossly disproportionate and shocks conscience | Sentence vacated as cruel or unusual under state constitution; remand for resentencing consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (trial court may strike prior conviction in furtherance of justice)
- People v. Molano, 7 Cal.5th 620 (2019) (mistrial warranted only where volunteered misconduct so prejudicial as to deny fair trial)
- People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (2011) (abuse of discretion review of mistrial denials; mistrial standard explained)
- People v. Bollaert, 248 Cal.App.4th 699 (2016) (threat may be implied from all surrounding circumstances)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (2004) (deferential review of Romero rulings; sentencing must account for variations in individual culpability)
- In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (1972) (California cruel or unusual punishment test and tripartite analysis)
- People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (1983) (application of Lynch proportionality framework)
- People v. Vargas, 59 Cal.4th 635 (2014) (limitations on when multiple convictions from single act count as multiple strikes)