People v. Galarneau CA5
F070171
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Defendant Gabriel Galarneau, a state-prison inmate, was charged with assault by an inmate (Pen. Code § 4501(b)) and a personal infliction of great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7(a)); allegations also included a prior strike/serious felony and a prior prison term.
- Victim Frank Rocco testified he was Galarneau’s cellmate, was attacked in his sleep and struck 20–30 times to the head/face, suffering bleeding, swelling, headaches, vision problems and memory issues; nurses and a correctional officer corroborated the injuries and officer testified Galarneau admitted the assault.
- Jury found Galarneau guilty and true on the great-bodily-injury enhancement; bench found the prior strike and prior prison term true.
- Defense raised two preserved objections on appeal only via ineffective-assistance theory: (1) prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal closing (alleged improper vouching/misstatements) and (2) instructional error in the trial court’s answer to a jury question about needing a “consensus” on the enhancement; both were forfeited at trial because no objections were made.
- Galarneau moved (Romero motion) to dismiss the prior strike under section 1385; the trial court denied the motion citing his extensive subsequent criminal history and recidivism. Sentence totaled 21 years (upper term doubled for strike plus consecutive enhancements).
- Court of Appeal affirmed: rejected misconduct claim as trivial and not prejudicial, declined to reach unpreserved instructional-error claim, and held denial of Romero motion was within discretion given defendant’s lengthy criminal history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct (rebuttal remarks) | Rebuttal was fair comment on witness credibility and motives. | Remarks vouched for witness, misstated evidence, prejudiced jury on enhancement; counsel ineffective for not objecting. | Remarks were permissible inferences or trivial; not prejudicial; failure to object not ineffective. |
| Forfeiture / Ineffective assistance for failure to object | Forfeiture bars review; trial strategy could reasonably explain no objection. | Counsel’s inaction amounted to ineffective assistance; appellate review warranted. | Forfeiture applies; even on habeas/ineffective-assistance theory, failure to object was not deficient or prejudicial. |
| Instructional error in answering jury question about “consensus” | Court’s response was adequate; parties consented; no timely objection. | Jurors could have been misled that less than unanimity sufficed; trial court should have clarified unanimity. | Claim forfeited by counsel’s agreement; appellate court declines discretionary review; ineffective-assistance argument raised late and waived. |
| Romero motion to strike prior strike (§ 1385) | The prior strike was remote (1991) and many subsequent convictions were misdemeanors/jail only, favoring dismissal. | Defendant is a recidivist with numerous convictions and parole violations; Three Strikes purpose supports denial. | Denial not an abuse of discretion given defendant’s lengthy, violent criminal history; remoteness alone insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (trial court may strike prior strikes under § 1385 if defendant falls outside spirit of Three Strikes)
- People v. Harrison, 35 Cal.4th 208 (prosecutorial misconduct standard under federal and state law)
- People v. Thornton, 41 Cal.4th 391 (forfeiture rule: must object and request admonition to preserve prosecutorial-misconduct claim)
- People v. Lopez, 42 Cal.4th 960 (ineffective-assistance framework when misconduct claim was unpreserved)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (standard for evaluating Romero motions and whether defendant falls outside spirit of Three Strikes)
- People v. Mendoza, 62 Cal.4th 856 (definition and limits of improper vouching by prosecutor)