People v. Chestra, B264462

Background

Defendant David Warren Chestra, a former gang member, was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and found to have personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death; he admitted prior serious-felony enhancements and was sentenced to 100 years to life.
Victim Gary Burks was shot in the head after defendant kicked in Burks’s apartment door; defendant initially confessed in a recorded interview, describing the killing and saying he acted out of gang-related motive and to protect/benefit his girlfriend Brandy Ricks.
The murder weapon and unique ammunition were found in Ricks’s car; surveillance showed Ricks and defendant purchasing the ammo days earlier; defendant later pled guilty to possessing the firearm.
At trial defendant recanted: he testified Ricks shot Burks during a struggle and he falsely confessed to protect her; he also claimed terminal illness as a reason for truthful trial testimony.
On appeal defendant raised multiple claims including involuntary confession (coercion/promised leniency), failure to instruct sua sponte on self-defense and lesser included voluntary manslaughter, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and clerical sentencing errors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Chestra)	Held
Voluntariness of confession	Confession was voluntary; detectives did not promise leniency for Ricks and repeatedly told defendant he need not talk.	Detectives coerced confession by implying leniency for Ricks, and counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress.	Confession was voluntary; no implied promise or coercion; counsel not ineffective for failing to bring a meritless suppression motion.
Sua sponte self-defense instruction	Court had no duty to instruct because defendant’s trial theory disputed he fired the shot; self-defense instruction would be inconsistent with his defense.	Failure to instruct violated due process—evidence showed defendant faced threat (scissors) and feared for life.	No error: defendant relied on a defense that he did not shoot; self-defense instruction would have been inconsistent with that theory; counsel not ineffective for tactical choice.
Sua sponte lesser-included voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion / imperfect self-defense)	No substantial evidence supported conviction of only manslaughter because defendant either confessed to an intentional killing pretrial or denied involvement at trial—evidence pointed to murder or acquittal.	Trial court should have instructed on voluntary manslaughter given evidence of provocation/attack by victim and possible imperfect self-defense.	No error: under People v. Sinclair, defendant’s trial testimony denying shooting (and his earlier confession showing intent) did not present substantial evidence that reasonable jurors could find only manslaughter.
Prosecutor closing argument on premeditation/deliberation	Prosecutor’s yellow-light analogy properly illustrated that deliberation can be brief; argument consistent with instructions.	Argument misstated law minimizing required reflection for premeditation.	No misconduct: analogy was a proper example; jury instructed to follow judge’s instructions over counsel’s remarks.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Sinclair, 64 Cal.App.4th 1012 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (trial court not required to give lesser-included manslaughter instruction when defendant denies participation)
People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (sua sponte duty to instruct on general principles and lesser included offenses when substantial evidence supports them)
People v. Tully, 54 Cal.4th 952 (Cal. 2012) (promises or benefits linked to confessions can render them involuntary)
People v. Benson, 52 Cal.3d 754 (Cal. 1990) (examination of causation between inducement and confession)
People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (Cal. 2009) (prosecutor may use brief analogies to illustrate that deliberation can occur quickly)