People v. Mejia
9 Cal. App. 5th 1036
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Philip Mejia was convicted by jury of torture (Pen. Code §206), spousal rape with tying/binding (§262; §667.61 enhancements), corporal injury to a spouse (§273.5), and criminal threats (§422); methamphetamine-administration allegations were found not true.
- Jury viewed multiple videos and heard testimony describing months-long coercive confinement, physical assaults (Taser, beatings, burning, binding), videotaped sexual assaults, threats, and confinement culminating in the victim fleeing on August 21, 2013.
- At sentencing the court imposed a life term for torture (count 1), 15 years-to-life for spousal rape (count 2), upper term 4 years for corporal injury (count 3), and 8 months consecutive for criminal threats (count 4). Defendant appealed.
- Defendant argued the trial court erred by failing to hold a Marsden hearing during Faretta (self-representation) proceedings, that certain witness testimony was improperly admitted, prosecutorial misconduct in closing, and that Penal Code §654 requires stay of some sentences.
- The Court of Appeal rejected claims about Marsden/Faretta, evidence admissibility, and prosecutorial error, but agreed §654 required remand to stay execution of the torture sentence and to impose unstayed sentences on counts 2–4.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Mejia’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had duty to hold a Marsden hearing during Faretta proceedings | No — defendant sought self-representation, not substitute counsel; Marsden not triggered | Court should have held Marsden because defendant expressed dissatisfaction with appointed counsel during Faretta hearings | Rejected Mejia’s claim; Marsden not required because he sought self-representation and never clearly requested new counsel |
| Admissibility of family testimony (prior bad acts / propensity / Evidence Code §1109 / §352) | Testimony was admissible; no preserved, specific objection on grounds now argued | Testimony was prior-bad-acts/propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial; should be excluded | Rejected on preservation grounds — defendant failed to make timely, specific objections, so issues not preserved for appeal |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (alleged misstatement of torture law) | Argument was proper characterization of torture as a course-of-conduct crime; any misstatement was not preserved | Prosecutor misstated law and counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance | Rejected — failure to object forfeited claim; no showing counsel had no tactical reason for countering in argument rather than objecting |
| Application of Penal Code §654 (whether multiple sentences must be stayed) | Section 654 requires staying sentences for lesser punishments when offenses were part of the same indivisible course of conduct; torture subsumes the assaultive acts used to prove it, so execution of one lesser sentence must be stayed | Mejia argued all counts arose from a single objective (inflict cruel pain) so multiple punishments must be stayed | Partially granted — §654 bars unstayed sentences for both torture and the underlying assaultive offenses (counts 2 and 3); court held torture sentence (count 1) must be stayed and the 15-year-to-life rape term (count 2) should be the unstayed life-prison term; criminal threats (count 4) may be separately punished since threats pursue a distinct objective |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mesa, 54 Cal.4th 191 (court held §654 bars multiple punishment when a crime’s elements require commission of an underlying offense; unstayed sentence must be under statute providing longest potential term)
- People v. Norrell, 13 Cal.4th 1 (discussed the trial court’s discretion under prior §654 and the legislative response prompting amendment)
- People v. Martinez, 125 Cal.App.4th 1035 (discussed convictions for torture as a course-of-conduct and that underlying assault offenses may support separate convictions)
- People v. Latimer, 5 Cal.4th 1203 (explained §654 divisibility analysis turns on defendant’s intent and objectives)
- People v. Harrison, 48 Cal.3d 321 (explained multiple-objective test for §654 and when multiple punishments may be imposed)
- People v. Tarris, 180 Cal.App.4th 612 (addressed inference of trial court’s implied §654 findings at sentencing)
- People v. Mendoza, 24 Cal.4th 130 (clarified that mere mention of dissatisfaction during Faretta hearing does not automatically trigger Marsden)
- Marsden v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 118 (established defendant’s right to a hearing when requesting substitution of appointed counsel)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognized right to self-representation)