32 Cal.App.5th 409
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- On March 22, 2017, Jose Antonio Jimenez led a high‑speed pursuit with his 4‑ and 6‑year‑old daughters unrestrained in the car; deputies pursued in marked vehicles and ultimately collided with Jimenez's car when he stopped abruptly.
- During the chase Jimenez drove into the opposing lane toward a patrol SUV, forcing the deputies to swerve to avoid a head‑on collision; deputies testified he was traveling ~40 mph and came within a few feet of the SUV.
- Jimenez was charged with assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer (Pen. Code § 245(c)), two counts of felony child abuse (§ 273a(a)), and evading a peace officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code § 2800.2(a)); prior serious‑felony and strike allegations were also alleged.
- At trial three deputies testified for the prosecution; the jury convicted on all counts and the court sentenced Jimenez to 13 years, 4 months including a consecutive five‑year serious‑felony enhancement.
- At sentencing the prosecution produced, for the first time, a sealed police report authored by one deputy (Deputy A.) documenting Jimenez's presence at an unrelated shooting weeks earlier; Jimenez moved for a new trial and argued a Brady violation and bias; the trial court denied the new trial motion and also denied Romero relief.
- On appeal the court affirmed convictions, rejected the Brady and new‑trial claims and the section 654 challenge, but remanded for resentencing under amended Penal Code §§ 667 and 1385 so the trial court may consider striking the five‑year prior serious‑felony enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of Deputy A.'s prior police report violated Brady | The report was not material or exculpatory; suppression acknowledged but not prejudicial | The report impeached Deputy A., showed bias/motive to convict, and likely would have led at least one juror to acquit | No Brady violation: report was suppressed but not favorable/material; independent corroboration and circumstantial evidence make a different result not reasonably probable |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying new trial based on newly discovered evidence (§ 1181) | The report was collateral and immaterial; denial appropriate | Report was newly discovered impeachment evidence that would render a different result probable | No abuse of discretion: the report’s impeachment value was insufficient to make a different result probable given corroborating evidence |
| Whether separate punishments for assault and evading violate Penal Code § 654 | Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for unitary conduct | The assault and evading reflected separate objectives/times—evading and then intentionally driving toward deputy—so separate punishments are proper | § 654 does not bar separate punishment: substantial evidence supports implied finding of multiple objectives and temporal separability |
| Whether resentencing is required under amended §§ 667 and 1385 (SB 1393) | Amendments grant discretion to strike formerly mandatory five‑year enhancement; defendant’s conviction not final so remand appropriate | Conceded by Attorney General | Remand for resentencing so trial court may consider striking the five‑year enhancement; no opinion on exercise of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the accused)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (three components of Brady; materiality/prerequisites)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor’s duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (undisclosed impeachment evidence may require reversal if material)
- People v. Salazar, 35 Cal.4th 1031 (2005) (Brady includes impeachment evidence; reasonable‑probability standard)
- In re Sassounian, 9 Cal.4th 535 (1995) (reasonable probability standard to undermine confidence in outcome)
- People v. Capistrano, 59 Cal.4th 830 (2014) (section 654 and test for single vs. multiple objectives)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (1996) (discretion to strike prior convictions in furtherance of justice)
- People v. Hoyos, 41 Cal.4th 872 (2007) (appellate review standards for new trial and credibility issues)