People v. Gomez
192 Cal. App. 4th 609
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Estrada was assaulted by four men, including Gomez, at the Philbin apartments; keys to Estrada’s pickup were taken during the attack.
- The assailants fled in Gomez’s car, returned 10–20 minutes later, and then took Estrada’s truck when two Zamoras opened it and drove away.
- Gomez was charged with carjacking, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and active participation in a criminal street gang, with gang enhancements and prior convictions alleged.
- The jury convicted Gomez of carjacking, simple assault, and gang participation; he was acquitted of robbery; prior strikes and felonies were found true in a bifurcated proceeding.
- The defense challenged (i) sufficiency of carjacking intent and immediate presence, (ii) admission of a gang affiliation statement made during booking, and (iii) bifurcation/severance of gang enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of carjacking intent | Gomez and others lacked intent to deprive the truck during the assault. | The evidence showed intent when returning to take the truck using fear. | Sufficient evidence supported intent upon return and use of fear to deprive. |
| Immediate presence requirement for carjacking | Truck was taken from Estrada’s immediate presence when returned. | Estrada was inside, not present with the vehicle, so it was not in his immediate presence. | Vehicle taken from immediate presence under Medina; sufficient proximity supported by fear and control. |
| Admissibility of gang affiliation statement (booking) | Booking-question exception to Miranda allows admission of gang statements. | Questions about gang affiliation should be Miranda-triggered and the statements suppressed. | Questions about gang affiliation were booking questions not designed to elicit incriminating responses; statements admitted. |
| Bifurcation/ severance of gang enhancements | Standard procedure allows bifurcation to separate gang enhancements from guilt. | Bifurcation and severance should have been granted to avoid prejudice. | Court denied the motion to bifurcate and sever gang enhancements. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Medina, 39 Cal.App.4th 643 (Cal. App. 1995) (immediate presence standard for carjacking)
- People v. Hoard, 103 Cal.App.4th 599 (Cal. App. 2002) (carjacking proximity and presence concepts; distinguishes Medina)
- People v. Morris, 192 Cal.App.3d 380 (Cal. App. 1987) (booking questions and incriminating responses; cautions on use)
- People v. Rucker, 26 Cal.3d 368 (Cal. 1980) (booking data and jail administration; Miranda considerations)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (Miranda invocation and burden of proof on voluntariness of statements)
- In re Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (definition of interrogation and functional equivalents)
- Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (U.S. 1990) (booking questions and routine booking exception; Miranda)
- Washington v. United States, 462 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2006) (booking questions about gang affiliation; routine basis)
- Pierce v. State, 234 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. App. 2007) (classification questions in jail security context; admissibility)
- Coleman v. People, 146 Cal.App.4th 1363 (Cal. App. 2007) (distinguishing cases where premises do not justify carjacking)