People v. Buchanan CA2/5, B305671M

Background

Defendant Mikell Buchanan was convicted by jury of first‑degree murder (lying in wait and shooting from a vehicle special circumstances), multiple counts of attempted murder, shooting from a motor vehicle, and felon in possession; firearm enhancements for personal use (§ 12022.53(d)) were imposed for some counts; sentence was LWOP + 135 years‑to‑life.
Key evidence linking Buchanan to the December 10, 2016 shootings: (1) confidential‑informant transcript of co‑shooter Jaidan Boyd implicating both Boyd and Buchanan; (2) ballistics tying .40 cal cartridge cases at the scene to a Glock whose serial number appears in a video of Buchanan holding that gun; (3) witness Daveion Ervin placing Buchanan at the scene and seeing him with a firearm and making incriminating comments after the shooting.
Trial events/issues: two jurors (Nos. 3 and 12) were excused for repeated pre‑deliberation discussion and related misconduct; prosecution admitted Boyd’s recorded jail statements as declarations against penal interest; defense challenged exclusion of impeachment material about the firearms examiner and raised Brady and falsified‑testimony claims about an earlier charged shooting while Buchanan was allegedly incarcerated.
While the appeal was pending, Assembly Bill No. 333 amended Penal Code § 186.22 (and added § 1109), changing elements needed to prove gang enhancements and providing for bifurcation of gang allegations; parties briefed the retroactivity and effect of that legislation on Buchanan’s gang findings, related special circumstance (§ 190.2(a)(22)), and § 12022.53(e) gang‑related enhancements.
The Court affirmed the substantive convictions and the personal‑use firearm enhancements under § 12022.53(d), but vacated the gang special‑circumstance finding, the § 186.22 gang enhancement findings, and the related § 12022.53(e) enhancements post‑Assembly Bill 333, and remanded so the People may elect retrial on those issues or the court may resentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Buchanan)	Held
1. Dismissal of jurors for pre‑deliberation discussion	Dismissals were proper because jurors repeatedly violated court admonitions and credibility calls support excusal	Dismissals violated right to impartial jury; lesser sanctions should have been used	Court affirmed dismissals; trial court did not abuse discretion (misconduct shown, credibility calls deferred to trial court)
2. Admission of Boyd’s jail statements to confidential informant (Evid. Code § 1230)	Statements were admissible as declarations against penal interest and sufficiently reliable; non‑testimonial	Statements were hearsay, cumulative, self‑serving, elicited/tainted by informant and admission violated due process	Court upheld admission; individualized review occurred and statements were against Boyd’s penal interest and reliable
3. Brady / failure to correct allegedly false testimony about an earlier shooting (counts later dismissed)	Any inconsistency was corrected at trial; no suppression of exculpatory evidence	Prosecution suppressed DOC records showing Buchanan incarcerated on charged date; failed to correct false testimony	No Brady error; defense knew Buchanan’s incarceration and detective corrected his testimony; issues forfeited where objections not made
4. Exclusion of prior‑misconduct impeachment material about firearms examiner (Deputy Chavez)	Exclusion proper under Evid. Code § 352 due to remoteness, lack of corroboration, and danger of mini‑trial	Exclusion denied meaningful confrontation and ability to impeach credibility	Court upheld exclusion as within trial court discretion; constitutional challenge forfeited or without merit given marginal probative value
5. Kellet bar (double‑prosecution) to felon‑possession counts	Charges concern separate incidents/different firearms; no bar	Prior plea/charging in earlier case barred subsequent possession counts here	Even if Kellet error, no prejudice: counts were dismissed at sentencing under § 1385; no reversible error preserved
6. Sufficiency of evidence for December 10, 2016 shootings	Evidence (Boyd statements, ballistics, videos, Ervin’s testimony) suffices to support convictions	Challenges attacked credibility and reliability of witnesses	Court affirmed convictions; substantial evidence supported verdicts; appellate court will not reweigh credibility
7. Effect of Assembly Bill 333 (retroactivity; need to vacate/remand gang findings)	Amendments apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments; People argue harmlessness/no remand needed	Buchanan asks retroactive application and vacatur of gang findings and related enhancements; § 1109 should apply retroactively	Amendments to § 186.22 are retroactive; court vacated gang special circumstance and § 186.22 and § 12022.53(e) findings and remanded to allow People to retry those findings; § 1109 construed as procedural and prospective (does not apply retroactively)

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and custodial interrogation distinctions)
People v. Gallardo, 18 Cal. App. 5th 51 (2017) (limits on admitting bulk transcripts of declarant‑informant conversations)
People v. Grimes, 1 Cal. 5th 698 (2016) (standards for admitting statements against penal interest under Evid. Code § 1230)
People v. Wheeler, 4 Cal. 4th 284 (1992) (scope of impeachment evidence and trial court discretion under Evid. Code § 352)
People v. Linton, 56 Cal. 4th 1146 (2013) (juror misconduct as basis for dismissal; deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal. 2d 740 (1965) (presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative criminal legislation in absence of contrary intent)
People v. Lopez, 73 Cal. App. 5th 327 (2021) (Assembly Bill 333 effects on gang enhancement elements and related findings)
People v. Sek, 74 Cal. App. 5th 657 (2022) (harmless‑error and retrial analysis when new statutory element not submitted to jury)