People v. Garrett
7 Cal. App. 5th 871
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In November 2008, four males in a car (including defendants Victor Garrett and Erion Varnado, both 17 at the time) committed multiple armed robberies and an attempted armed robbery; victims included Gutierrez and Gribben (forced into a car trunk) and Mangano (shots fired while fleeing).
- Garrett was convicted (first trial) of multiple second‑degree robberies, two counts of kidnapping for robbery (forcing Gutierrez and Gribben into the trunk), attempted robbery, and assault with a firearm; enhancements for personal firearm use and discharge were found; sentenced to 74 years 4 months to life.
- Varnado was convicted at two trials of two counts of second‑degree robbery and later convicted at retrial of the kidnapping counts and firearm use; sentenced to 31 years to life.
- On appeal defendants raised multiple issues: insufficiency of asportation for kidnapping for robbery; denial of a defense pinpoint instruction on ‘‘incidental’’ movement; admissibility of evidence about shots fired at Mangano; sufficiency of attempted robbery intent; alleged unduly suggestive identifications; Garrett also challenged an in‑field show‑up, Miranda waiver, and Eighth Amendment sentencing claim because they were juveniles.
- The court affirmed convictions, held the trunk confinement satisfied the asportation and increased risk prongs for kidnapping for robbery, rejected challenges to identification procedures and Miranda waiver, and found evidence of shots admissible as part of a common scheme.
- In light of People v. Franklin (2016), the court remanded for a limited purpose: determine whether defendants had adequate opportunity at sentencing to create a record of youth‑related mitigating evidence relevant to future youth offender parole hearings under Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801; if not, allow supplementation of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of asportation for kidnapping for robbery | Prosecution: moving victims into and locking them in trunk increased risk and satisfied Daniels test | Garrett/Varnado: movement was short/trivial and merely incidental to robbery | Affirmed: forcing victims into and locking them in trunk satisfied asportation and increased risk prongs |
| Refusal to give defense pinpoint instruction on "incidental" movement | People: CALCRIM No.1203 adequately explained asportation requirement | Varnado: requested instruction clarifying incidental movement may exist even if not necessary for robbery | Affirmed: trial court properly refused pinpoint as redundant/confusing given CALCRIM No.1203 |
| Admission at retrial of evidence about shots fired at Mangano | People: shots evidence relevant to common scheme/plan (Evid. Code §1101(b)) | Varnado: such evidence was prejudicial and unrelated to Gutierrez/Gribben robberies | Affirmed: evidence admissible as part of same crime spree; probative value not outweighed by prejudice |
| Sufficiency of intent for attempted robbery of Mangano | People: prior similar robberies and conduct (pulling car in front, brandishing guns) support intent and overt act | Varnado: firing shots and fleeing do not show intent or an overt act toward robbery | Affirmed: evidence of pattern and overt acts supported intent and attempt |
| Identification procedures (photo showup, field show‑up) | People: procedures were not unduly suggestive; identifications reliable | Defendants: identifications were suggestive (single photos, in‑field show‑up) | Affirmed: procedures not unduly suggestive; defendant burden to show suggestiveness unmet |
| Miranda waiver (Garrett) | People: valid Miranda advisement was given and Garrett impliedly waived rights | Garrett: custodial interrogation of a juvenile was coercive; waiver not knowing/voluntary | Affirmed: totality of circumstances showed understanding and implied voluntary waiver |
| Eighth Amendment challenge to lengthy sentence for juvenile offender | People: Senate Bill No. 260/§3051 provides parole hearing eligibility and addresses Miller/Graham concerns | Garrett: long sentence for juvenile nonhomicide is cruel and unusual | Convictions affirmed; limited remand ordered to allow record of youth‑related mitigating evidence for future youth offender parole hearings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Daniels, 71 Cal.2d 1119 (Cal. 1969) (articulated asportation test for kidnapping for robbery)
- People v. Delgado, 56 Cal.4th 480 (Cal. 2013) (kidnapping for robbery requires movement beyond that incidental to robbery and increased risk)
- People v. Vines, 51 Cal.4th 830 (Cal. 2011) (no minimum distance required for sufficient asportation)
- People v. Balcom, 7 Cal.4th 414 (Cal. 1994) (uncharged offenses admissible to show common design or plan under Evid. Code §1101(b))
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012) (juvenile offenders must have meaningful opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation; functional LWOP concept)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (Sen. Bill No. 260/§3051 provides youth offender parole hearings and can render Miller claims moot; remand to ensure record for parole hearings)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings and waiver standards)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (Eighth Amendment bars LWOP for juvenile nonhomicide offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencer must consider youth mitigating features)