People v. Cuiriz
A144351M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 13, 2017Background
- On Aug. 19, 2012, at a birthday party, defendant Deyanira Cuiriz shot into a truck after a confrontation in which two men assaulted her father; the victim became a quadriplegic.
- Cuiriz was charged with attempted murder (reduced by the jury to attempted voluntary manslaughter), shooting at an occupied vehicle, and mayhem; jury convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and mayhem.
- Police interrogated Cuiriz at the station ~6–7 hours after the shooting; she was read Miranda warnings, said she understood, and made recorded statements admitting the shooting and describing anger/fear; recording was played at trial.
- The prosecution alleged and the jury found true firearm enhancements (Pen. Code § 12022.53(d)) alleging intentional discharge causing great bodily injury, which mandates a 25‑to‑life enhancement; trial court imposed a stayed sentence of 27 years‑to‑life (2‑year base on mayhem + 25‑to‑life enhancement) and stayed other terms under § 654.
- On appeal Cuiriz challenged (1) voluntariness/knowingness of her Miranda waiver and admission of the interrogation recording; (2) admission of a detective’s on‑tape comment; and (3) that the resulting 27‑to‑life sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court affirmed admission issues but found the sentence constitutionally excessive and modified the judgment to impose a 12‑year term for attempted voluntary manslaughter (activating a previously stayed 12‑year aggregate sentence) instead of the 27‑to‑life term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded interrogation (Miranda waiver) | Waiver was voluntary and knowing; recording admissible. | Waiver not voluntary/knowing due to youth, distress, lack of sleep/food; exclude recording. | Affirmed: waiver was knowing and voluntary; recording admissible. |
| Detective’s on‑tape comment (opinion that shooting was not self‑defense) | Any potential prejudice cured by stipulation/instruction that officers’ remarks are not evidence. | Remarks were prejudicial and should have been excised. | Affirmed: court’s limiting instruction cured any prejudice. |
| Eighth Amendment / state cruel & unusual challenge to 27‑to‑life sentence | Enhancement justified by statute to deter gun use; sentence lawful. | 27‑to‑life is grossly disproportionate here given provocation, lack of planning, youth, no priors, and jury's verdict of heat of passion. | Reversed as to sentence: 27‑to‑life found cruel and unusual as applied; court modified sentence. |
| Remedy / resentencing method | Leave enhancement; legislative scheme controls. | Strike/enjoin excessive enhancement; impose a constitutionally permissible aggregate term reflecting culpability. | Modified judgment: vacated the imposed sentence and activated a 12‑year term for attempted voluntary manslaughter (appropriate aggregate including other statutory enhancements), other parts of judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and waiver standards)
- People v. Duff, 58 Cal.4th 527 (standard for reviewing Miranda waiver and admissibility)
- People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (framework for state cruel or unusual punishment review)
- In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (criteria for disproportionality and constitutional review)
- People v. Hines, 15 Cal.4th 997 (application of Lynch/Dillon factors to as‑applied challenges)
- People v. Ervine, 47 Cal.4th 745 (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
- People v. Em, 171 Cal.App.4th 964 (summarizing the three‑pronged proportionality test)
- People v. Schueren, 10 Cal.3d 553 (unusual application of a harsher sentence for a lesser included offense)