People v. Luker CA4/3
G050575
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2016Background
- Defendant Daniel Brian Luker (aka “Caveman”) was a shot caller in the La Mirada Punks (LMP), a white racist criminal street gang; he admitted three prior strikes and one serious felony and was sentenced to 80 years to life (plus consecutive term in another case).
- Breanna “Bree” Chacon, Luker’s then-girlfriend and an LMP associate, had cooperated with police as an informant; LMP members had “green lighted” her (targeted her) and discussed delivering a “hot shot” (a syringe with drugs/toxic chemicals).
- While jailed, Luker wrote letters and made recorded calls indicating anger at Chacon, knowledge of her informant status, distribution of her “paperwork,” and instructions to gang members to target her; officers recovered letters and jail-call recordings corroborating those threats.
- Two accomplices, Daniel Garretto (cellmate) and Shantell Apodoca, testified that Luker asked Garretto to deliver paperwork and to tell another member to give Chacon a hot shot; both cooperated with prosecution (Garretto pleaded guilty; Apodoca received immunity).
- Gang expert testified LMP’s culture and hierarchy (shot callers, green lighting, paperwork distribution) and that Luker’s actions would be intended to benefit and promote gang criminality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions impermissibly rested on uncorroborated accomplice testimony | Prosecution: testimony of Garretto and Apodoca was corroborated by letters, jail calls, recovered paperwork, and gang expert testimony linking Luker to the crimes | Luker: accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated to connect him to the offenses | Court: accomplice testimony was adequately corroborated by circumstantial evidence (calls, letters, paperwork, gang culture) and convictions stand |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder (specific intent and direct but ineffectual act) | Prosecution: Luker green-lighted Chacon, distributed paperwork, arranged a hot shot — all direct acts manifesting intent to kill | Luker: prosecution failed to show a direct but ineffectual act toward killing Chacon; conviction violates due process | Court: substantial evidence supported intent and direct acts in furtherance of killing (green light, paperwork distribution, arranging hot shot); attempted murder conviction affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred in awarding presentence custody/conduct credits | People: correct calculation must include 30 days conduct credit under Penal Code § 2933.1 | Luker: parties agreed he was entitled to the additional conduct credit | Court: modified abstract of judgment to award 203 days actual custody credit and 30 days conduct credit |
| Sentencing posture and affirmance of modified judgment | People: requested correction of abstract to reflect correct credits | Luker: challenged underlying convictions (accomplice corroboration and sufficiency) | Court: rejected challenges, granted agreed credit adjustment, affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Riggs, 44 Cal.4th 248 (California 2008) (accomplice status and corroboration principles)
- People v. Manibusan, 58 Cal.4th 40 (California 2013) (corroboration of accomplice testimony can be slight and circumstantial)
- People v. Superior Court (Decker), 41 Cal.4th 1 (California 2007) (elements of attempted murder require specific intent plus a direct but ineffectual act)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence — view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- People v. Story, 45 Cal.4th 1282 (California 2009) (application of Jackson standard)
- People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557 (California 1980) (evidentiary sufficiency framework)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (California 2008) (acceptance of reasonable inferences by jury in sufficiency review)
- People v. Tripp, 151 Cal.App.4th 951 (California 2007) (deference to jury where circumstantial evidence supports verdict)
- People v. Cortez, 18 Cal.4th 1223 (California 1998) (presentence credits and statutory authority)
- People v. Jacobs, 220 Cal.App.4th 67 (California 2013) (application of conduct credit under Penal Code § 2933.1)