People v. Jeronimo CA5
F078575A
Cal. Ct. App.May 5, 2022Background
- Defendant Jesus Jeronimo was tried with codefendants for the April 2016 killing of Abrahan Gaspar; charged with murder and firearm enhancement (§§ 187, 12022.53(d)); jury convicted and found enhancements true.
- Facts: victim dated codefendant Angelita Reyes; Jeronimo admitted arranging a meeting, obtaining a gun (from Arturo), assaulting Gaspar, leading him into an almond orchard and shooting him; multiple witnesses and text messages corroborated motive and admissions.
- Trial disputes included exclusion of a 911 call, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing (statements that defendants "didn't go to the police" and a premeditation analogy), and requested jury instructions (heat of passion, CALCRIM No. 522).
- Appellant raised forfeiture/ineffective assistance claims about failing to admit the 911 call and failure to object to prosecutor arguments; trial court denied mistrial and refused certain instructions.
- Court of Appeal affirmed convictions, rejected preserved and ineffective-assistance arguments on the record, found the prosecutor’s comment improper under state law but not prejudicial, and concluded no sua sponte heat-of-passion instruction was required.
- Court remanded for resentencing in light of People v. Tirado and agreed to strike the parole revocation fine if life without parole remains imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Jeronimo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 911 call; forfeiture | 911-call testimony was hearsay and properly excluded; defense failed to preserve specific hearsay exceptions. | Statements on 911 call were admissible (spontaneous/state of mind); trial counsel’s failure to admit it forfeited the issue; IAC if forfeited. | Forfeited: defense did not raise the specific admissibility grounds at trial. IAC claim not resolvable on direct appeal because record lacks the 911 recording/transcript; habeas is appropriate. |
| Prosecutor’s closing: "didn't go to the police" (misleading) | Argument was proper comment that defendants should have used legal remedies; exclusion of 911 evidence did not change that point. | Comment was false (defendants did call 911) and prejudicial; requested mistrial. | Statement was misleading and error under state law, but not so egregious to deny due process; court admonished jury and error was not prejudicial given instructions and overwhelming evidence. |
| Prosecutor’s premeditation/deliberation analogy; failure to object | Closing analogy accurately stated law (reflection over time) and was permissible argument. | Analogy misstated law (implied quarter-second suffices); counsel ineffective for not objecting. | Forfeited by no objection; IAC claim denied—analogy in context was proper and evidence supported premeditation/deliberation. |
| Sua sponte instruction on heat-of-passion manslaughter (CALCRIM No. 570) | No substantial evidence supported heat of passion; defendant reflected and weighed decision. | Provocation from romantic/blackmail dispute warranted a sua sponte manslaughter instruction. | Denial affirmed: record did not show actual loss of reason or unconsidered reaction—defendant’s admissions showed deliberation. |
| Requested CALCRIM No. 522 (provocation to reduce degree) | Not warranted because evidence did not support provocation-based mitigation. | Instruction should have been given to consider provocation in degree. | Refusal affirmed: CALCRIM No. 522 is a pinpoint instruction and was not supported by substantial evidence. |
| Cumulative error | Errors together prejudiced verdict. | Combined errors undermined fairness. | No cumulative prejudice shown; only state-law error was nonprejudicial prosecutor comment. |
| Resentencing under Tirado | Trial court can and should consider striking or reducing 12022.53(d) enhancement per Tirado discretion. | Agreed remission appropriate under Tirado. | Remanded for resentencing so court can exercise discretion recognized in People v. Tirado. |
| Parole revocation fine | Fine properly imposed stayed. | Parole revocation fine improper where life without parole is imposed. | Agreed with defendant; fine to be stricken if L w/o P remains on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tirado, 12 Cal.5th 688 (Cal. 2022) (sentencing courts may strike a §12022.53(d) enhancement and impose a lesser enhancement)
- People v. Hamilton, 45 Cal.4th 863 (Cal. 2009) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct and due process)
- People v. Mai, 57 Cal.4th 986 (Cal. 2013) (standards for ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
- People v. Williams, 56 Cal.4th 630 (Cal. 2013) (IAC claims requiring investigation outside the record should be pursued in habeas)
- People v. Bolton, 23 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1979) (prejudice standard for prosecutorial remarks)
- People v. Solomon, 49 Cal.4th 792 (Cal. 2010) (premeditation/deliberation can occur in a brief interval; focus on extent of reflection)
- People v. Gomez, 6 Cal.5th 243 (Cal. 2018) (elements of first degree murder and premeditation/deliberation)
- People v. Morrison, 34 Cal.App.5th 217 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (remand for resentencing when sentencing law changes)
- People v. Oganesyan, 70 Cal.App.4th 1178 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (parole revocation fine principles)