42 Cal.App.5th 1001
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2013 three defendants (Medrano, Martinez, Avellanoza) were tried and convicted by jury for attempted murder, burglary, assault with a firearm, and gang-related offenses arising from a November 24, 2010 home invasion and shooting of victim Michael Machado, Jr.; Avellanoza was also convicted of shooting into an inhabited dwelling.
- The jury found true multiple enhancements (premeditation/deliberation, firearm use, great bodily injury, and gang enhancements); substantial indeterminate and determinate prison terms were imposed.
- While defendants’ appeals were pending, the California Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal to reconsider in light of Senate Bill 1437 (2018), which limited imputed malice and curtailed the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine for murder, and added Penal Code § 1170.95 (a petition procedure).
- Medrano and Martinez argued Senate Bill 1437 requires reversal of their attempted murder convictions because their convictions rested in part on the natural-and-probable-consequences theory and § 188 now forbids imputed malice; they also argued § 1170.95 should be available on direct appeal or that the amendment applies to attempt.
- The Court of Appeal held Senate Bill 1437’s elimination of imputed malice applies to attempted murder premised on the natural-and-probable-consequences doctrine, § 1170.95’s petition procedure applies only to murder (not attempt), and because the defendants’ judgments were nonfinal when the ameliorative law took effect, relief is available on direct appeal under In re Estrada; it reversed attempted murder convictions as to Medrano and Martinez and reversed all gang convictions/enhancements for all three defendants (other counts and enhancements mostly affirmed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of SB 1437 to attempted murder | People: SB 1437 and §1170.95 address murder; attempted murder is not covered so no relief via §1170.95 | Medrano/Martinez: §188’s ban on imputed malice applies to attempt because attempt requires express malice; relief should be available on direct appeal (Estrada) if judgment nonfinal | Held: §188’s ban on imputed malice applies to attempted murder premised on natural-and-probable-consequences; §1170.95 applies only to murder; because convictions were nonfinal, defendants get retroactive relief on direct appeal under Estrada — attempted murder convictions for Medrano and Martinez reversed |
| Remedy procedure for nonfinal convictions | People: defendants must use §1170.95 petition process; direct appeal would undermine the statutory scheme | Defendants: §1170.95 was aimed at final convictions; direct appeal remains available for nonfinal judgments under Estrada | Held: §1170.95 doesn’t preclude direct-appeal relief for nonfinal convictions; Estrada applies -> retroactive application on appeal permitted |
| Jury instruction & prosecutor reliance on natural-and-probable-consequences | People: evidence supports convictions under valid theories (direct aiding/abetting, premeditation) | Defendants: jury was instructed on invalid natural-and-probable-consequences theory for attempted murder; instruction prejudiced defendants | Held: Instruction and argument permitting liability via natural-and-probable-consequences for attempted murder were legally invalid after SB 1437 and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to Medrano and Martinez; convictions reversed (People may retry) |
| Admission of gang evidence (Elizalde/Sanchez issues) | People: gang expert may rely on police reports/booking cards; evidence supported gang allegations and motive | Defendants: much of gang evidence was testimonial hearsay and un-Mirandized intake information—violated Confrontation and Miranda; deprived of fair trial | Held: Trial admission of case-specific testimonial hearsay and un-Mirandized jail intake information violated Sanchez and Elizalde; gang convictions and enhancements reversed for all three (People may retry); but remaining counts (1–4) and most enhancements affirmed because evidence of premeditation and identity was sufficiently strong and errors were harmless as to those counts |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155 (2014) (explains direct aiding-and-abetting vs. natural-and-probable-consequences liability and imputation of malice)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative criminal-law changes apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments unless Legislature provides otherwise)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (limits gang-expert testimony: expert may not relate case-specific testimonial hearsay to jury as true; Crawford confrontation analysis applied)
- People v. Elizalde, 61 Cal.4th 523 (2015) (un-Mirandized jail intake statements about gang affiliation inadmissible in prosecution’s case-in-chief)
- People v. Lopez, 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 (2019) (held §1170.95 limited to murder; concluded SB 1437 did not apply to attempted murder — court disagreed with its attempted-murder holding)
- People v. Munoz, 39 Cal.App.5th 738 (2019) (similar to Lopez; review granted)
- People v. Fontenot, 8 Cal.5th 57 (2019) (discusses heightened intent requirement for attempts and relation between attempt and completed crime)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (2016) (addressed retroactivity and petition procedures in other ameliorative statutory contexts)