49 Cal.App.5th 156
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- At a Riverside river-side homeless camp, Richard Valles fought with Michael Carmona after Carmona pushed Valles’s girlfriend; Valles left the scene because he felt a seizure coming on.
- While Valles was away, co-camp member Jesus Renteria stabbed Carmona multiple times; Carmona was left bleeding and lying incapacitated, later wrapped in carpet.
- Valles returned, saw Carmona covered and apparently not breathing, fetched a single-shot .22 rifle from his tent, and shot Carmona in the head; Valles later buried the body.
- Autopsy showed multiple stab wounds and a fatal gunshot to the head; any of the major wounds could have caused death over minutes, but the gunshot would have caused immediate death.
- A jury convicted Valles of first-degree murder and found true the section 12022.53(d) firearm-discharge enhancement; he was sentenced to an aggregate 50 years to life.
- On appeal Valles challenged: (1) the trial court’s refusal to instruct on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter; (2) imposition of minimum restitution/fees without an ability-to-pay finding; and (3) whether the court must be allowed to consider imposing a lesser firearm enhancement on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter | No instruction required because evidence did not reasonably support heat-of-passion theory. | The court’s omission relieved the People of proving malice beyond a reasonable doubt. | Affirmed — no manslaughter instruction required; evidence showed cooling-off and deliberate conduct (went to tent for gun, returned, shot). |
| Imposition of $300 minimum restitution fine and other fees without ability-to-pay hearing | Minimum restitution fine is mandatory punishment under §1202.4(c) and may be imposed without an ability-to-pay finding; other small fees may be charged unless defendant proves present inability to pay. | Following People v. Dueñas, an ability-to-pay hearing was required before imposing fines/fees; failure violated due process. | Affirmed — court properly imposed the statutory minimum restitution fine without an ability-to-pay hearing; fees not remanded because record did not establish present inability to pay and any error would be harmless. |
| Whether sentencing court must consider imposing a lesser firearm enhancement after a true §12022.53(d) finding | The trial court may only strike the enhancement in the interest of justice; it lacks authority to substitute an uncharged, lesser enhancement when the greater enhancement is legally applicable and supported by the verdict. | Relying on People v. Morrison, the court should have understood SB 620 amended §12022.53 to allow sentencing courts to impose lesser enhancements in the exercise of discretion. | Affirmed — court has discretion to strike/ dismiss an enhancement but not to substitute a lesser, uncharged enhancement absent a legal impediment to the greater enhancement or insufficiency of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (explaining duty to instruct on general principles and when lesser included instructions are required)
- People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (heat-of-passion requires actual passion and may be negated by sufficient cooling time)
- People v. Wickersham, 32 Cal.3d 307 (sufficient time for passion to subside defeats voluntary manslaughter claim)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (statutory minimum restitution fine may be imposed without an ability-to-pay finding)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (holding an ability-to-pay hearing is required before imposing fines—contrary view relied on by defendant)
- People v. Wall, 3 Cal.5th 1048 (ability-to-pay hearing required only when fine exceeds statutory minimum)
- People v. Morrison, 34 Cal.App.5th 217 (held sentencing court could impose lesser enhancement under amended §12022.53 —reasoning rejected here)
- People v. Tirado, 38 Cal.App.5th 637 (contrary authority to Morrison; court lacks power to substitute uncharged lesser enhancement)
- People v. Fialho, 229 Cal.App.4th 1389 (trial court may impose an uncharged lesser enhancement when a greater enhancement is legally inapplicable or unsupported)