People v. Medelez
206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 402
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Medelez convicted by jury of multiple sex offenses, including crimes against an adult roommate and a minor.
- He drugged and orally copulated his unconscious adult roommate in August 2013, a completed offense under §288a, subd. (f)(i) and §243.4, subd. (e)(1).
- Two months later, Medelez attempted to orally copulate a 16-year-old (A.P.) after luring him with job prospects and money; the attempt involved a direct act or movement toward the minor.
- Trial included a juror removal midtrial after concerns about impartiality; the court conducted a voir dire and replaced the juror.
- Abstract of Judgment incorrectly listed count 4 as a conviction; it was dismissed and later corrected.
- Disposition: stay the four-month sentence for attempted oral copulation to avoid double punishment, amend the abstract, and affirm as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a defendant be convicted of both attempt and luring for minor sexual offenses? | Medelez argues luring supplants attempt; but both cover different conduct. | Luring is a general statute; attempting prohibits duplication when elements align. | Yes; can convict of both as they are not necessarily included and cover different conduct. |
| Is one offense a lesser included offense of the other for double jeopardy purposes? | Attempt is not a subset of luring; neither is a lesser included offense of the other. | If one statute subsumes the other, convictions could be barred. | Neither is a lesser included offense; multiple convictions authorized. |
| Can the trial court stay punishment under 654 when offenses share a single intent? | Concede shared intent, but seek multiple punishments. | Rule 654 should prevent duplicative punishment when same intent drives offenses. | Stay the four-month sentence for attempted copulation to avoid double punishment; modify abstract. |
| Was the juror removal properly supported by a demonstrable reality record and standard of review? | Removal supported by juror's recent uncomfortable memory and inability to serve impartially. | Court’s actions should be scrutinized; detective testimony not pivotal. | Removal upheld; record shows demonstrable reality and proper discretion. |
| Should the abstract of judgment reflect the correct dismissed count and modified sentence? | Abstract incorrectly listed a convicted count. | Corrections are necessary to reflect dismissal and 654 stay. | Abstract corrected; count 4 dismissed; 654 stay imposed; judgment affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williamson, 43 Cal.2d 651 (1954) (special vs general statute; luring not supplanting attempt)
- People v. Murphy, 52 Cal.4th 81 (2011) (general statute includes elements; relates to special statute-luring)
- People v. Sanders, 55 Cal.4th 731 (2012) (necessarily included offenses; multiple convictions prohibition)
- People v. Bonner, 80 Cal.App.4th 759 (2000) (sufficient evidence of attempt when victim is not near or spoken to)
- People v. Debose, 59 Cal.4th 177 (2014) (courts defer to trial judge on juror state of mind; no reweighing)
- People v. Butler, 43 Cal.App.4th 1224 (1996) (654 stay where appropriate for overlapping offenses)
- People v. Barnwell, 41 Cal.4th 1038 (2007) (juror removal discretion standards; demonstrated reality)
- People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (2011) (attempt requires a direct act going beyond preparation)