People v. Diaz CA5
F080321
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 3, 2022Background
- On June 20, 2018, a physical altercation occurred at defendant Anthony Martinez Diaz’s family home; a kitchen knife was involved and victim F.C. suffered stab wounds. The knife was not recovered.
- Witnesses (family members and first responders) gave inconsistent accounts about who inflicted the wounds; some at-scene statements implicated Diaz, while trial testimony was less certain.
- Diaz was charged with attempted murder (count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (count 2); jury convicted him of attempted voluntary manslaughter (lesser included of count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (count 2).
- The jury found true enhancements for personal infliction of great bodily injury and personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon.
- On appeal Diaz argued (1) the trial court’s failure to give CALCRIM No. 302 (instruction on resolving conflicting evidence) deprived him of a fair trial and (2) the section 12022(b)(1) weapon-use enhancement to the assault-with-a-deadly-weapon conviction is invalid because weapon use is an element of that offense.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions but struck the 12022(b)(1) enhancement and ordered an amended abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to give CALCRIM No. 302 (conflicting evidence) | Instruction omission was not prejudicial because other instructions covered the same substance | Omission deprived him of fair trial; jury needed CALCRIM No. 302 to weigh contradictory evidence | No prejudicial error — substance of CALCRIM No. 302 was covered by other instructions and jurors properly applied them |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to request CALCRIM No. 302 | Even if counsel did not request it, defendant suffered no Strickland prejudice | Counsel’s failure to request No. 302 constituted ineffective assistance | No ineffective assistance — no reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the omission |
| Validity of §12022(b)(1) weapon-use enhancement on assault with a deadly weapon | People conceded enhancement cannot apply because weapon use is an element of §245(a)(1) | Enhancement invalid because it impermissibly duplicates an element of the offense | Enhancement stricken; abstract of judgment to be amended |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rincon-Pineda, 14 Cal.3d 864 (trial court duty to give instruction when evidence conflicts)
- People v. Ibarra, 156 Cal.App.4th 1174 (assessing instructions in context as a whole)
- People v. Landry, 2 Cal.5th 52 (whether jury was reasonably likely misled by instructions)
- People v. Aranda, 55 Cal.4th 342 (standard instruction omission not error if substance covered elsewhere)
- People v. Mayo, 140 Cal.App.4th 535 (Watson prejudice analysis for instructional omissions)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (state-law prejudice standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test; prejudice inquiry)
- People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171 (California standard for ineffective assistance review)
- People v. Stanley, 39 Cal.4th 913 (prejudice standard in assessing counsel errors)
- People v. Summersville, 34 Cal.App.4th 1062 (section 245(a)(1) cannot be enhanced under §12022(b))
- People v. McGee, 15 Cal.App.4th 107 (same principle on weapon-use enhancement)