98 Cal.App.5th 709
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Demetrius Coleman was convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances and firearm enhancements, and sentenced to life without parole plus significant terms for enhancements, after a shooting in Humboldt County.
- The murder occurred during illegal marijuana deals, with contested facts about Coleman's and others' involvement before, during, and after the shooting.
- On appeal, Coleman argued his trial counsel violated the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) by advising him to "use Ebonics, slang, and to sound ghetto" when testifying, which he claimed exhibited racial bias.
- Coleman also challenged the trial court's imposition of multiple sentence enhancements and a parole revocation restitution fine, the latter of which the prosecution agreed was improper.
- The appellate court considered whether amendments to the RJA allowed Coleman's new bias-related claim to be raised directly on appeal, even though it was not specifically raised at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defense counsel's advice under RJA | No racial bias or animus was shown | Advice to "sound ghetto"/use slang was racially biased, violating the RJA | No RJA violation; advice to "be yourself" was tactical, not bias |
| Raising RJA claim for first time on appeal | Forfeited as not raised below | Amendments to RJA permit direct appeal based on record | Court reaches merits, but finds no RJA violation |
| Imposition of sentence enhancements after SB 81 | Defendant forfeited right by inaction | Court should have considered and stricken extra enhancements per § 1385 as amended | Claim forfeited; no evidence court misunderstood discretion |
| Parole revocation restitution fine on LWOP | Should be stricken as illegal | Should be stricken as illegal | Fine stricken; judgment otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118 (Cal. 1970) (establishes procedure for defendants to seek substitution of appointed counsel due to ineffective assistance)
- People v. Gutierrez, 28 Cal.4th 1083 (Cal. 2002) (defendant's credibility is always at issue when testifying)
- People v. Jenkins, 140 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (parole revocation restitution fine not proper for LWOP sentences)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (failure to seek § 1385 dismissal forfeits issue on appeal)
- People v. Stowell, 31 Cal.4th 1107 (Cal. 2003) (courts presumed to know and apply current law)