People v. Montoya CA3
C076708
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Defense and codefendants were charged in a broad conspiracy case involving methamphetamine sales by the Broderick Boys gang in 2011–2012.
- Montoya participated in at least one March 19, 2012 sale to an undercover agent; count 19 covers sale, count 5 covers umbrella conspiracy with numerous overt acts.
- Jury convicted Montoya on counts 1, 3 (sales) and 19 (sale), and counts 5 and 18 (conspiracies); gang charges and enhancements were acquitted or rejected.
- The trial court sentenced Montoya to an aggregate 13-year term, with an on-bail enhancement and a prior prison term; one prior term was stayed.
- The defense challenged duplicative conspiracy counts, the second prior term, minute-order errors, and the court’s failure to strike the strike priors.
- The appellate court reversed count 5, affirmed count 18, modified the prior-prison-term issue, remedied the minute order, and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are counts 5 and 18 duplicative or are they distinct conspiracies? | People: umbrella conspiracy (count 5) not supported; count 18 stands as separate conspiracy. | Montoya: counts 5 and 18 encompass same agreement; one must be struck. | Count 5 reversed; count 18 affirmed; issue moot. |
| Was the second prior prison term properly stayed given only one prior term proved? | People: two priors supported; stay appropriate for second term. | Montoya: only one prior term proved; second term should be dismissed. | Modify judgment; strike and vacate second prior prison term. |
| Should the minute order reflect the court’s actual sentence? | Minute order must reflect all punishments imposed. | Corrections required for on-bail and prior-term sentences. | Direct correction of minute order required. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a strike-prior motion? | Strike prior properly denied given criminal history and lack of prospects. | Request to strike should have been granted due to mitigating factors. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Montoya, 33 Cal.4th 1031 (Cal. 2004) (discusses elements and multiple conspiracy theories)
- People v. Coyle, 178 Cal.App.4th 209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (multiple convictions based on single act; separate offenses)
- Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1947) (multiple conspiracies; distinct illegal ends)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (wheel-with-spokes conspiracy; separate conspiracies)
- Portela, 167 F.3d 687 (1st Cir. 1999) (factors for single vs multiple conspiracies)
- People v. Liu, 46 Cal.App.4th 1119 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (multiple conspiracies; interdependence analysis)
- Morante v. State, 20 Cal.4th 403 (Cal. 1999) (conspiracy elements and proof standards)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2001) (minute-order corrections; sentencing remand)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (standard for reviewing strike-prior discretion)