People v. Deanda CA3, C089940A

Background

This case arises from the third in a series of gang-related shootings; defendants Robert Deanda and John Damian (Red Krew Norteños) were charged with multiple firearm and gang-related offenses after the shooting that killed R.C.
Evidence at trial included a 2014 assault conviction of Deanda (used by the People as a predicate offense and to prove motive/intent and gang membership) and gang-expert testimony linking the charged offenses to gang benefit.
The jury convicted both defendants on several counts (including assault with a semiautomatic firearm and felon in possession), deadlocked on other counts, and found prior conviction/prior prison term allegations true; personal-use firearm and gang enhancements were found not true.
Deanda received an aggregate sentence (upper term on count one) that included a one-year prior prison term enhancement; Deanda was under 26 and had urged the court to consider his traumatic childhood at sentencing.
On appeal the court (1) upheld admission of Deanda’s 2014 conviction, (2) rejected the claim that the trial court coerced the jury by sending them back to deliberate, (3) agreed SB 136 applies retroactively and struck the §667.5(b) prior-prison enhancements, and (4) remanded Deanda’s case for full resentencing under the newly effective Assembly Bill 124 and Senate Bill 567.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 2014 assault conviction as predicate and evidence of motive/intent	The prior conviction was a proper predicate offense and relevant to motive/intent and gang pattern under Evid. Code §1101(b) and §186.22	Evidence was unduly prejudicial under Evid. Code §352 and cumulative given other gang proof	Admission was within trial court’s discretion: probative as independent predicate and motive evidence; not substantially outweighed by prejudice; no constitutional error
Court sent jury back to deliberate after deadlock	Court had discretion to encourage further deliberations and to answer legal questions; jurors had previously asked legal questions/readbacks	Sending jury back was coercive because there was no reasonable probability of agreement	No abuse of discretion: some jurors indicated legal clarification might help; court avoided coercive remarks and merely offered assistance
Prior prison-term enhancements after SB 136	SB 136, effective before judgment was final, eliminates most §667.5(b) one-year enhancements and applies retroactively	Enhancement should remain (argued previously)	Court (and parties) agree SB 136 applies retroactively; §667.5(b) enhancements stricken
Resentencing under AB 124 and SB 567	People: remand required so trial court can exercise discretion under new statutes	Deanda: requests full resentencing under new laws (argues upper term reconsideration is required)	Remand for full resentencing is required because trial court must be allowed to exercise informed discretion under AB 124 and SB 567; record does not clearly show same result would have been reached

Key Cases Cited

People v. Tran, 51 Cal.4th 1040 (2011) (factors for weighing probative value versus prejudicial effect of uncharged misconduct)
People v. Thompson, 45 Cal.3d 86 (1988) (Evid. Code §352 and limits on uncharged misconduct evidence)
People v. Thomas, 231 Cal.App.3d 299 (1991) (permissible questioning of jury about whether legal instruction would aid deliberations)
People v. Sandoval, 4 Cal.4th 155 (1992) (standard and limits on continuing jury deliberations under §1140)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (presumption that ameliorative legislation applies to nonfinal judgments)
People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014) (remand required when trial court was unaware of full sentencing discretion)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (remand for resentencing when new law affects sentencing discretion)
People v. Chhoun, 11 Cal.5th 1 (2021) (prosecution’s right to introduce relevant evidence to prove enhancements)