People v. Mixon CA2/4, B297325

Background

Victim Delmus Wilkerson was found suffocated in his Compton shed; the shed was ransacked and a plastic bag was under his head. Appellant Ronnie Mixon’s DNA was found on a hair entwined with the victim’s bloody fingers.
Eyewitness Sherill Waters testified Mixon suffocated Wilkerson, ransacked the shed, and left with property; her testimony had inconsistencies and she was a drug-user at the scene.
Co‑defendant Timothy Blaxton entered a proffer and a cooperation agreement to plead to robbery for an eight‑year sentence in exchange for testifying truthfully; the agreement stated a neutral judge would assess his truthfulness and the People could void the deal if he lied.
Jury acquitted Mixon of murder and robbery but convicted him of first‑degree burglary and found the victim was over 65.
At sentencing Mixon admitted four prior prison terms; the court imposed the upper term for burglary plus a one‑year elder enhancement and four one‑year prior‑term enhancements for an aggregate 11‑year sentence and ordered $870 in fines/fees/restitution. Senate Bill No. 136 later eliminated most one‑year prior‑term enhancements.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Mixon’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for burglary	Evidence (Waters, Blaxton, DNA hair) supports inference Mixon was present and intended to rob or kill, so burglary is supported.	Only Blaxton placed him at scene; Blaxton was not credible and uncorroborated—insufficient evidence.	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported burglary; acquittals on other counts do not negate burglary verdict.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to cooperation‑agreement terms (vouching)	Admission was proper; agreement fairly informed jury of inducement and did not impermissibly vouch.	Counsel should have objected to terms stating a neutral judge would review truthfulness and that plea could be revoked—these vouched for Blaxton.	Denied: no improper vouching; objection would be meritless and no prejudice shown.
Effect of S.B. 136 on prior‑term enhancements and need for remand	Strike the four one‑year prior‑term enhancements; no remand needed because court imposed maximum sentence and gave no leniency.	Strike enhancements and remand for resentencing to allow consideration of post‑sentencing mitigation.	Strike the four enhancements and affirm as modified; remand unnecessary because court already imposed maximum aggregate sentence.
Ability‑to‑pay determination for fines/fees/restitution	No timely objection; trial counsel may have had tactical reasons not to object; courts decline to extend Dueñas to victim restitution.	Trial court violated due process/Eighth Amendment by imposing $870 without finding ability to pay; trial counsel ineffective for not objecting.	Forfeited/no relief: claim forfeited by failure to object; ineffective‑assistance claim fails on record — counsel could have had tactical reasons and courts have refused to extend Dueñas to victim restitution.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Davis, 57 Cal.4th 353 (substantial‑evidence standard for criminal convictions)
People v. Lewis, 25 Cal.4th 610 (verdicts on different counts reviewed independently; inconsistent verdicts do not require reversal in most cases)
People v. Pahl, 226 Cal.App.3d 1651 (discussing limited Johnston exception to inconsistent‑verdict rule)
People v. Rodriguez, 9 Cal.5th 474 (prosecutor may elicit plea‑agreement terms to inform jury of inducement without impermissible vouching)
People v. Price, 8 Cal.App.5th 409 (eliciting plea‑agreement terms that require truthfulness is not vouching when it fairly informs jury)
People v. Hoyt, 8 Cal.5th 892 (standards for ineffective‑assistance claims)
People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (ability‑to‑pay discussion for fines and fees)
People v. Evans, 39 Cal.App.5th 771 (declining to extend Dueñas to victim restitution)
People v. Gastelum, 45 Cal.App.5th 757 (remand unnecessary where trial court imposed maximum term after statutory change)
People v. Winn, 44 Cal.App.5th 859 (same)