People v. Medina
244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In May 2016 defendants Antonio Silva and Oscar Medina (Headhunters gang members) crashed a car into an apartment building in Diamond Street gang turf, then returned in another car. Silva exited and fired multiple .380 caliber shots into a crowd of bystanders; no one was hit. Medina shouted gang slogans and a derogatory term for Diamond Street before leaving on foot.
- Victims included residents Juan Alcaraz and Jose Sanchez; building security video corroborated their testimony and showed Silva firing into the crowd.
- A jury convicted both defendants of four counts of attempted murder (counts 1–4) and four counts of assault with a firearm (counts 5–8), and found true firearm-use (§§ 12022.5, 12022.53) and gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). Prior serious/violent-felony allegations were admitted by both defendants.
- Trial court denied Medina’s Romero motion to dismiss strikes; Silva was sentenced to 54 years-to-life, Medina to 62 years-to-life. On appeal defendants raised sufficiency, instructional, gang-enhancement, and sentencing claims; Medina also challenged admission of prior bad-act evidence and multiple sentencing enhancements.
- The published holding: it was error to give a kill-zone jury instruction as to the John Doe attempted-murder counts. In the unpublished portion the court affirmed convictions and enhancements, found the instructional error harmless, and remanded limited resentencing tasks for Medina (striking/considering certain prior-felony and firearm enhancements and staying assault sentences under § 654).
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder of Alcaraz and Sanchez | Silva’s purposeful firing at Alcaraz/Sanchez at close range supports specific intent to kill | Defendants argued lack of proof where gun was aimed, bullet trajectory, or injuries undermines intent to kill | Convictions sustained; close-range firing and video/evidence supported intent to kill and direct but ineffectual act |
| Appropriateness of kill-zone instruction for John Doe counts | Instruction justified as alternative theory that those in area were within a kill zone when Silva targeted primary victims | Defendants argued no primary target and no evidence of intent to kill everyone in zone | Error to give kill-zone instruction: no evidence of a primary target or intent to kill everyone in a kill zone; instruction should not have been given |
| Gang and firearm enhancement findings | Evidence (gang shouting, benefits to gang, firearm use) supports enhancements | Defendants contested sufficiency of evidence for gang benefit and firearm-use findings | Enhancements affirmed on appeal |
| Sentencing errors and Romero motion denial (Medina) | People supported denial and sentencing enhancements; argued corrections unnecessary or limited | Medina claimed Romero denial, cruel-and-unusual sentence, and improper prior/five-year serious felony enhancements; sought remand under SB 620/1393 | Court remanded to strike one five-year prior enhancement, consider striking remaining serious-felony and 20-year firearm enhancement, and stay assault sentences under § 654; convictions and enhancements otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (defining kill-zone/concurrent intent doctrine)
- People v. Stone, 46 Cal.4th 131 (multiple attempted murders possible without specific single target)
- People v. Perez, 50 Cal.4th 222 (attempted murder intent and kill-zone discussion)
- People v. Smith, 37 Cal.4th 733 (close-range shooting permits inference of intent to kill)
- People v. Burnett, 9 Cal.App.4th 685 (error to instruct on unsupported theory)
- People v. Cardona, 246 Cal.App.4th 608 (limitations on kill-zone instruction and related analysis)
- People v. McCloud, 211 Cal.App.4th 788 (kill-zone and attempted-murder principles)
- People v. Vang, 87 Cal.App.4th 554 (kill-zone/intent discussion)
- People v. Chinchilla, 52 Cal.App.4th 683 (missed shots do not negate intent)
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (authority on dismissing prior strikes under § 1385)