People v. Calles
147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Bryan Calles was convicted of two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter, three counts of leaving the scene of an accident, and one count of second degree murder.
- During deliberations, defense argued witnesses gave varying time estimates; defense claimed jurors conducted a timing demonstration using a watch, allegedly affecting deliberations.
- The trial court denied a new-trial motion for juror misconduct; the appellate court assesses whether misconduct occurred and if it prejudiced the verdict.
- On sentencing, the court stayed execution on most counts, but misapplied stays and enhancements, and remanded for sentencing consistent with the opinion.
- Issues on remand include whether to stay or impose counts 1, 2, and 3/7/8, how to handle related enhancements, and consolidation/dismissal of certain counts.
- The court found errors in presentence custody credits and in the criminal conviction assessment, warranting correction on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct during deliberations | Calles contends a timing demonstration constituted misconduct that tainted the verdict. | Calles argues jurors used a watch to simulate time, improperly introducing new evidence. | No prejudicial juror misconduct; timing use within evidentiary scope. |
| Stay of execution on Rocha count | 654 limits stayed punishments to the longest term; Rocha’s death count should be stayed or not based on violence criteria. | State argues certain stays were improper and overlap with other counts/enhancements. | Stay on Rocha count 1 was improper; remand for sentencing adjustments. |
| Stay/dismissal of remaining leaving-the-scene counts | Three counts name different victims; only one leaving-the-scene offense can be punished; others should be dismissed/stayed. | Discretion to stay or dismiss should align with 654 and concurrent enhancements. | On remand, select one leaving-the-scene count to impose; dismiss the other two; stay the remaining execution on the chosen count. |
| Enhancements and 654 as applied to multiple counts | Ahmed framework allows enhancements for same conduct; 654 may bar multiple punishments where appropriate. | Prosecution contends enhancements may run concurrent or stay inconsistently with substantive counts. | 654 applies to certain enhancements; stay or consolidation determined on remand; specific enhancements must align with Ahmed framework. |
| Presentence conduct credits and criminal conviction assessment | Court correctly awarded credits and conviction assessment across counts. | Moon/§2933.2 prohibits credit for murder convictions; abstract should reflect higher conviction assessment. | Presentence conduct credits corrected; criminal conviction assessment adjusted to reflect $180 total; credits limited as required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Collins, 49 Cal.4th 175 (Cal. 2010) (framework for analyzing jury misconduct with experiments)
- People v. Ault, 33 Cal.4th 1250 (Cal. 2004) (independently review denial of new-trial motions for juror misconduct)
- Smoketree-Lake Murray, Ltd. v. Mills Concrete Construction Co., 234 Cal.App.3d 1724 (Cal. App. 1991) (juror demonstrations introducing new evidence constitute misconduct)
- People v. Guilford, 151 Cal.App.3d 406 (Cal. App. 1984) (section 654 staying applicable to concomitant enhancements)
- People v. Julian, 198 Cal.App.4th 1524 (Cal. App. 2011) (modifies understanding of 654 in enhancements context)
- Ahmed, 53 Cal.4th 156 (Cal. 2011) (specific vs. general under 654; enhancements interplay)
- People v. Verlinde, 100 Cal.App.4th 1146 (Cal. App. 2002) (concerning bodily injury and related enhancements)
- People v. Reeves, 91 Cal.App.4th 14 (Cal. App. 2001) (application of 654 to enhancements involving multiple counts)