40 Cal.App.5th 961
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Michael Medrano (19 at the time) was convicted by a jury of first degree murder (one count), two counts of second degree robbery, and one count of assault likely to produce great bodily injury; sentenced to 25 years to life plus seven years.
- On March 21, 2016, three men were attacked near Medrano's apartment complex; one victim (Victim Three) was stabbed and died; two others were beaten and robbed.
- Physical and testimonial evidence included: a photo lineup ID of Medrano by Victim One, blood from Victim Two found on Medrano's shoes, and R.R.’s statement that Medrano said he stabbed Victim Three; Medrano admitted punching/kicking victims but denied stabbing or robbing.
- Medrano was sentenced in December 2017, ~18 months after People v. Franklin (2016) established the right of juvenile offenders receiving indeterminate life sentences to an opportunity at sentencing to make a youth-related mitigation record.
- On appeal Medrano raised (1) failure to instruct on voluntary manslaughter (imperfect defense of another), (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing, (3) alleged double punishment under Penal Code § 654, (4) entitlement to a Franklin remand/proceeding, and (5) an error in actual custody credit calculation.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Medrano’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to instruct on voluntary manslaughter (imperfect defense of another) | No instruction required because evidence did not show defendant actually believed another faced imminent death or great bodily injury. | Instruction was required because Medrano intervened in a fight involving J.L. and therefore might have imperfectly defended another. | No error: record lacked substantial evidence that Medrano actually believed J.L. faced imminent death or great bodily injury. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (appeal to sympathy for victims in closing) | Even if improper, remarks were isolated and harmless given strong evidence; did not render trial fundamentally unfair. | Remarks appealed to juror sympathy and constituted misconduct; defense counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance. | Harmless: statements were isolated, jury was instructed appropriately, and evidence of guilt was strong—no prejudice shown. |
| Penal Code § 654 (consecutive sentences for robbery and assault of Victim One) | Consecutive sentences valid because assault and robbery reflected separate intents/objectives; trial court’s implied finding supported by evidence. | Assault was incidental to the robbery and therefore punishment should have been stayed under § 654. | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports trial court’s implied finding of divisible objectives; no § 654 bar to consecutive sentence. |
| Franklin proceeding (opportunity to make youth-mitigation record) | No remand needed because Franklin was decided well before sentencing and the record shows Medrano had the opportunity; petitioner may instead file a § 1203.01 motion per In re Cook. | Remand for a Franklin proceeding required because defense did not develop youth-related mitigation evidence; record unclear whether defense knew to do so. | No Franklin remand on appeal: Medrano was sentenced after Franklin and the record shows no deprivation of opportunity; affirmed without prejudice to filing a § 1203.01 motion (per Cook) to develop the youth-mitigation record. |
| Actual custody credits | Award of custody credits was correct per People’s calculation. | Medrano argued the credit calculation was off; actual entitlement was 648 days rather than 646. | Court directed correction: abstract of judgment to reflect 648 days of actual custody credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (trial must afford juvenile offender sentenced to indeterminate term an adequate opportunity to create a youth-related mitigation record).
- In re Cook, 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cal. 2019) (habeas is not the proper first step for a Franklin proceeding; moving court under § 1203.01 is appropriate).
- People v. Duff, 58 Cal.4th 527 (Cal. 2014) (trial court must instruct on all lesser included offenses supported by substantial evidence).
- People v. Simon, 1 Cal.5th 98 (Cal. 2016) (independent review of instructional error claims).
- People v. Arias, 13 Cal.4th 92 (Cal. 1996) (prosecutor's appeals to jury sympathy for victims can constitute misconduct).
- People v. Correa, 54 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 2012) (§ 654 prohibits multiple punishment for the same act; separate objectives permit multiple punishments).