People v. Cuiriz
A144351N
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- Defendant Deyanira Cuiriz (age 19) fired one shot into a truck after a late-night confrontation in which two men allegedly assaulted her father; the shot rendered victim Oscar Barcenas quadriplegic.
- Police arrested Cuiriz, read her Miranda rights, and interviewed her ~6–7 hours later; a recorded stationhouse interrogation (in which she admitted shooting and described anger/fear) was played at trial.
- An amended information charged attempted murder, shooting at an occupied vehicle, and mayhem, with allegations she personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury.
- Jury acquitted attempted murder but convicted attempted voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion), shooting at an occupied vehicle, and mayhem; aggravated mayhem deadlocked and was dismissed.
- Trial court imposed mitigated base terms but was required by statute to add a mandatory 25‑years‑to‑life firearm enhancement, producing an aggregate sentence of 27 years to life; other sentences were stayed under Penal Code § 654.
- On appeal the court affirmed conviction, held the interrogation recording admissible, rejected excision of a detective’s comment, but found the 27‑to‑life sentence cruel and unusual as applied and modified the judgment to impose a 12‑year term (attempted voluntary manslaughter plus applicable enhancements) instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cuiriz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded stationhouse interrogation | Waiver valid; Miranda warnings given and defendant responded she understood | Waiver not knowing/voluntary: young, distraught, fatigued, possibly shocked | Recording admissible; court and appellate panel independently reviewed tape and found voluntary, knowing waiver |
| Failure to excise detective’s opinion from tape | Any concern cured by stipulation/instruction that officer statements are not evidence | Detective’s remark ("that’s not self defense...") was prejudicial and should be removed | No error; jury instructed police statements not evidence; presumed to have followed limiting instruction |
| Cruel and unusual punishment challenge to 27‑to‑life sentence | Enhancement valid; Legislature intended long sentences to deter/firearm danger | Enhancement produces grossly disproportionate result given provocation, lack of planning, youth, no priors, jury’s heat-of-passion verdict, and comparative sentencing anomalies | Sentence found cruel and unusual as applied; appellate court modified judgment to vacate the imposed sentence and instead activated a 12‑year sentence reflecting attempted voluntary manslaughter plus appropriate enhancements |
| Proper remedial sentencing alternative | Maintain statutory enhancement or remand for resentencing | Strike/enforce different sentence because 25‑to‑life here excessive; trial judge’s hands tied by mandatory enhancement | Court declined to strike enhancement only (which would leave 2 years) and instead vacated imposed sentence and activated the previously stayed 12‑year attempted‑voluntary‑manslaughter term as proportionate remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda rule on advisement and waiver of rights)
- People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (1983) (framework for state cruel or unusual punishment review)
- In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (1972) (three‑pronged test for disproportionality under California Constitution)
- People v. Em, 171 Cal.App.4th 964 (2009) (summary of proportionality test and Eighth Amendment analysis)
- People v. Ervine, 47 Cal.4th 745 (2009) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
- People v. Schueren, 10 Cal.3d 553 (1973) (‘‘unusual’’ punishment where lesser included carried greater statutory term)