People v. Louie
203 Cal. App. 4th 388
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Louie and Ek, validated gang members, were convicted on multiple counts for arson and threats tied to a January 6, 2007 attack on Christina McDonald’s apartment.
- Ek called McDonald a cop caller and threatened retaliation before the arson; after the fire, Ek returned and threatened again.
- Charges included arson of an inhabited structure, dissuading a witness, criminal threats, and the substantive street terrorism offense, with street terrorism enhancements added to most counts.
- Evidence included eyewitness testimony, firefighter and DNA analysis linking a sweatshirt to Ek, and an arson origin locating near the apartment doorway.
- Detective Slater testified on gang activity and the relationship between TRG/MLS gangs and the charged crimes, framing the acts as being for the TRG gang’s benefit.
- The trial court sentenced Ek to 14 years-to-life plus additional terms, and Louie to 7 years-to-life plus additional terms; the court addressed multiple challenges to sentencing under section 654.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 186.22 enhancements bar substantive street terrorism sentences | Louie/Ek contend enhancements double-count punishments. | Defendants argue no double punishment, or that stay is required. | Section 186.22(b)(1) enhancement must be stricken when (b)(4) or (b)(5) applies. |
| Whether count 4 street terrorism punishment should be stayed under 654 | State argues dual punishments for same act. | Defense argues multiple acts justify separate punishments. | Street terrorism count 4 punishments should be stayed; acts comprise multiple punishable events. |
| Whether arson and dissuading a witness constitute a divisible course of conduct | Course of conduct may yield multiple punishments. | Etc. | Arson and dissuading a witness are separately punishable; stay applies to street terror counts. |
| Whether criminal threats arising after the fire may be punished separately | Threats post-fire are separate acts. | Threats are part of the same act as dissuading a witness. | Stay the sentence for criminal threats to avoid double punishment. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lopez, 34 Cal.4th 1002 (2005) (section 186.22(b)(1) vs (b)(4)/(b)(5) conflict; distinct procedures)
- People v. Johnson, 109 Cal.App.4th 1230 (2003) (when subdivision (b)(4) applies, (b)(1) cannot apply)
- Neal v. State of California, 55 Cal.2d 11 (1960) (multi-act/identification of single act under 654)
- People v. Castenada, 23 Cal.4th 743 (2000) (gang participation is status; act required for liability under 186.22(a))
- People v. Mendoza, 59 Cal.App.4th 1333 (1997) (course of conduct; divisible vs indivisible acts)
- People v. Herrera, 70 Cal.App.4th 1456 (1999) (precedent on 654 and gang enhancements; limited applicability)
- People v. Perez, 23 Cal.3d 545 (1979) (section 654 purpose to ensure proportional punishment)