People v. Gonzalez CA4/3
G060374
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 27, 2022Background
- Three drive-by shootings in San Jose (2012–2013): attempted murder of Brian Joya, murder of Armando Heredia, and murder of Pedro (Moko) Cortez; same .45 firearm linked Heredia and Joya; forensic cobalt linked Cortez to a black Challenger.
- Gonzalez owned/drove vehicles matching surveillance (white Eclipse, later black Challenger); made post‑incident admissions to gang associates and to police implicating his presence and conduct.
- Key eyewitness/peripheral witnesses: gang member Ramon Lomeli (testified under immunity), Gonzalez’s sister ("Sister") whose stationhouse interview implicated Gonzalez, and Detective Ramirez (gang expert).
- Jury convicted Gonzalez of two counts of first‑degree murder and one count of attempted premeditated murder; multiple firearm and gang enhancements and special circumstances found; sentencing included LWOP on two counts, consecutive life on the attempted murder, plus firearm enhancements and previously imposed appointed counsel costs and an administration fee.
- On appeal Gonzalez raised multiple claims (mistrial, expert/admissibility issues, accomplice instruction, coerced statements, cumulative error, fee imposition); while appeal was pending legislature enacted AB 333 (bifurcation of gang enhancements) and AB 1869 (elimination/forgiveness of certain criminal fees). Court affirmed convictions but vacated unpaid appointed‑counsel costs and the criminal justice administration fee as of July 1, 2021, and ordered correction of the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Gonzalez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Mistrial after witness referenced an uncharged shooting | Brief unsolicited reference was curable by strike/admonition | Reference so prejudicial a mistrial was required | Denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion; testimony struck and jury admonished cured any prejudice |
| 2. Admissibility/qualification of Ramon Lomeli as gang expert | Lomeli’s lived experience qualified him; dual role allowed | Lomeli lacked expert qualifications; dual role violated confrontation and improperly vouched | Defendant forfeited qualification claim; in any event court did not abuse discretion—experience sufficed; no confrontation or vouching error shown |
| 3. Accomplice instruction (CALCRIM No. 334) for Lomeli | No substantial evidence Lomeli was an accomplice to murder | Lomeli aided/assisted (searched for casings) so instruction required | No sua sponte instruction required—evidence at most showed accessory after the fact, not accomplice liability |
| 4. Admissibility of Sister’s stationhouse statements (voluntariness) | Statements were voluntary despite pressure; admissible as prior inconsistent statements | Statements were coerced by threats/promises and should have been suppressed | Statements were voluntary under totality of circumstances; trial court properly admitted recorded interview |
| 5. Cumulative error | Errors harmless individually, no cumulative prejudice | Combined errors violated due process and require reversal | No cumulative error—individual claims rejected, so aggregate prejudice fails |
| 6. AB 333 bifurcation of gang enhancements (retroactivity) | Even if retroactive, failure to bifurcate was harmless given overwhelming evidence | Trial should be reversed / bifurcated under new statute | Court assumed retroactivity arguendo but found failure to bifurcate harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong evidence |
| 7. AB 1869 fees and abstract correction | AB 1869 requires vacatur of unpaid balances and correction of clerical errors | Defendant sought relief under AB 1869 | Vacated unpaid appointed counsel costs and criminal justice administration fee as of July 1, 2021; ordered abstract corrected to reflect oral sentence pronouncements |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wallace, 44 Cal.4th 1032 (discretionary mistrial standard)
- People v. Morales, 10 Cal.5th 76 (expert qualification/forfeiture)
- People v. Johnsen, 10 Cal.5th 1116 (when accomplice instruction required)
- People v. Balderas, 41 Cal.3d 144 (distinction accessory after the fact vs. accomplice)
- People v. Lee, 95 Cal.App.4th 772 (inadmissibility of coerced witness statements)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard for federal constitutional error)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (state law harmless‑error standard)