People v. Jordan CA2/8, B295816A

Background

Ralph Jordan and three codefendants were charged with attempted bank robbery and attempted murder (one codefendant pleaded and testified for the People); surveillance, DNA, cell‑tower records, the getaway car, and a cooperating co‑defendant tied Jordan to the scene.
Jordan was convicted of attempted robbery and attempted murder; jury found a principal was armed; court found multiple prior serious felonies and prison‑term enhancements, struck some enhancements, and imposed an aggregate sentence of 50 years‑to‑life plus 16 years determinate.
During trial the People proffered plea offers to Speight and Johnson that would be entered after trial unless they gave a factual‑basis plea; they sat at counsel table throughout the People’s case and formally pleaded no contest after the prosecution rested.
The People introduced evidence of Jordan’s alleged role as getaway driver in an uncharged 2004 bank robbery to prove intent; the defense sought to limit or clarify prior conviction details and objected to certain spousal testimony.
On appeal the panel initially affirmed, the Supreme Court granted review and remanded for reconsideration in light of later legislation; the Court of Appeal vacated its prior decision and remanded for an evidentiary hearing under Penal Code § 1170.95 as to the attempted murder conviction (Senate Bill 1437/775 issues), while affirming the remainder of the judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether permitting Speight and Johnson to remain at counsel table after plea offers violated Jordan’s due process/right to fair trial	Allowing them to remain did not create a binding pretrial plea or structural error; normal trial management	Their presence was effectively a pretrial plea agreement and prejudiced Jordan (conflict/severance needed)	No error: no binding plea existed; no gross unfairness shown; severance not required (denial harmless)
2) Whether attempted murder conviction survives post‑SB 1437	Attempted murder conviction valid under existing law	Jordan: conviction rests on natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory and SB 1437 (as amended) applies	Remand: conviction implicated the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences theory; order to show cause and evidentiary hearing under §1170.95 required
3) Admissibility of prior uncharged 2004 bank robbery to prove intent	Prior getaway‑driver robbery was relevant to intent and admissible under Evid. Code §1101(b)	Evidence was prejudicial and unnecessary because identity, not intent, was disputed	Admission proper: prior act relevant to intent; trial court did not abuse discretion under §352; not constitutionally unfair
4) Denial of defendant’s request to clarify that a 2000 robbery conviction was not a bank robbery	People used conviction for impeachment only; details irrelevant to credibility	Jordan: jurors might infer extended history of bank robberies absent clarification	No error: relevance lacking; jury instructions and limiting instructions prevented speculation; no reasonable probability of different outcome
5) Admission of certain statements by Jordan via spouse Wright (marital privilege)	Statements fell outside privilege (presence of others, crime exception, spontaneity) or were harmless if admitted	Privileged marital communications admitted in error and prejudiced trial fairness	Two challenged statements were covered by privilege but any error was harmless; another statement fell within the crime exception; overall admission not prejudicial
6) Cumulative prejudice from asserted errors	Combined errors rendered trial fundamentally unfair	Individual alleged errors were either unfounded or harmless, so cumulative claim fails	No cumulative prejudice: only minor, harmless privilege error found; conviction otherwise affirmed (with §1170.95 remand)
7) Validity of 1990 robbery as a strike (defendant was 16, used false name/DOB)	Absence of juvenile fitness hearing invalidates strike; trial court lacked evidence	Strike may be collaterally attacked only for Boykin/Tahl or counsel deprivation; defendant concealed age and benefited from plea	Held valid: claim not cognizable collateral attack here; fitness hearing issue is state procedural and forfeited/estopped where defendant concealed age
8) Collateral attack on 2001 attempted robbery used as strike (Tahl advisement issue)	Counsel argued plea may not have advised of strike consequences so conviction shouldn’t count	People: future use as strike is collateral consequence; Tahl does not require advisement of collateral consequences	Denied: no Tahl violation shown; future strike use is collateral and does not invalidate plea absent other defects
9) Whether Senate Bill 136 requires resentencing/remand (eliminating certain §667.5 enhancements)	SB136 changes maximums; remand required so trial court can reconsider sentencing	People: trial court already struck §667.5 enhancements; sentence valid and not infected	No remand: court struck §667.5 enhancements at sentencing; no reasonable possibility sentence would be different
10) Imposition of fines/assessments without ability‑to‑pay hearing (Dueñas)	Dueñas requires ability‑to‑pay inquiry; failure to object is excused because Dueñas changed the law	People: defendant forfeited claim by not objecting; no ineffective‑assistance shown	Forfeited: failure to object waives claim; no prejudice shown for ineffective‑assistance allegation

Key Cases Cited

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (framework for due process/fundamental‑unfairness claims and standards of review)
People v. Gomez, 6 Cal.5th 243 (Cal. 2018) (antagonistic defenses and severance principles)
People v. Montes, 58 Cal.4th 809 (Cal. 2014) (no structural error from failure to sever absent gross unfairness)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (procedure for §1170.95 petitions and remand practice)
People v. Leon, 61 Cal.4th 569 (Cal. 2015) (Evid. Code §352 balancing and admission of uncharged misconduct)
People v. Molano, 7 Cal.5th 620 (Cal. 2019) (comparing severity of uncharged offense when admitting evidence)
People v. Cleveland, 32 Cal.4th 704 (Cal. 2004) (marital communications privilege standards)
In re Tahl, 1 Cal.3d 122 (Cal. 1969) (plea advisement requirements)
Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1994) (limits on collateral attacks to prior convictions used for sentencing)
People v. Level, 97 Cal.App.4th 1208 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (juvenile age concealment and forfeiture of challenge to prior conviction)