32 Cal. App. 5th 409
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- On March 22, 2017 Jose Antonio Jimenez led a high‑speed pursuit with his 4‑ and 6‑year‑old daughters in the car, drove into oncoming traffic toward a patrol SUV, and stopped abruptly; deputies testified the SUV had to swerve to avoid a head‑on collision. Jimenez was charged with assault on a peace officer (§ 245(c)), two counts of felony child abuse (§ 273a(a)), and evading a peace officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code § 2800.2(a)).
- Three deputies testified for the prosecution; photographs and physical evidence (open beer can, collision damage, mud) corroborated aspects of the pursuit. Jimenez argued the deputies coordinated testimony and were biased victims/witnesses.
- At sentencing the prosecution produced a previously undisclosed police report by Deputy A. describing Jimenez’s presence at an unrelated February 2017 shooting (no charges against Jimenez). The report had not been provided before trial and was sealed for sentencing proceedings.
- Jimenez moved for a new trial (Pen. Code § 1181(8)) and argued a Brady violation for nondisclosure of the report and that the report would impeach Deputy A.; the trial court denied the new‑trial motion and found the report immaterial. The court also denied Romero relief and imposed a 13‑year, 4‑month sentence including a consecutive five‑year serious‑felony enhancement under former § 667(a)(1).
- On appeal Jimenez argued (1) Brady violation/new‑trial error based on the undisclosed report, (2) multiple punishments for assault and evading violated § 654, and (3) he was entitled to resentencing under SB 1393 (amendments to § 667 and § 1385). The court affirmed conviction, rejected Brady/new‑trial and § 654 claims, but remanded for resentencing to permit discretionary striking of the five‑year enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jimenez) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady nondisclosure of Deputy A.'s police report | Report was favorable impeachment evidence of officer bias/coordination; nondisclosure deprived him of fair trial | Report was collateral, not showing dishonesty or bias sufficient to be impeaching or material | No Brady violation: report suppressed but not favorable/material enough to create reasonable probability of different result |
| Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (§ 1181(8)) | Report is newly discovered impeachment evidence that would likely produce different verdict | Report is immaterial; other corroborating evidence (other deputies, photos) undercuts claim of materiality | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial; evidence immaterial and largely impeaching only |
| Double punishment under Penal Code § 654 (assault vs. evading) | Assault and evasion were part of same objective (avoid arrest) so punishment should be stayed | Assault and evasion reflected separate objectives/times; driving into oncoming lane to strike SUV was an independent act | § 654 does not bar separate punishments; implied finding of multiple objectives supported by substantial evidence |
| Resentencing under amended §§ 667 and 1385 (SB 1393) | Requests remand so court may consider striking the five‑year prior serious felony enhancement | Concedes remand appropriate because conviction not final and amendments apply | Remand for resentencing to permit trial court discretion to strike the five‑year enhancement; otherwise judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (three Brady components: favorable, suppressed, material/prejudicial)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government's behalf)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (prosecutor's disclosure duty is ongoing)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (undisclosed impeachment/inducement evidence may warrant relief if material)
- Sassounian v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 535 (1995) (reasonable‑probability standard to show Brady materiality)
- People v. Salazar, 35 Cal.4th 1031 (2005) (Brady extends to impeachment evidence; materiality standard)
- People v. Capistrano, 59 Cal.4th 830 (2014) (§ 654 analysis: multiple punishments allowed if multiple objectives/divisible conduct)
- People v. Beamon, 8 Cal.3d 625 (1973) (temporal divisibility of conduct can allow separate punishments)
- People v. Lopez, 198 Cal.App.4th 698 (2011) (reflection time between acts can make conduct divisible for § 654 purposes)