People v. Reyes
246 Cal. App. 4th 62
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In June 2011 defendant Leonel Lopez Reyes entered the home of 14‑year‑old Daniela, forced her onto a couch, orally copulated and raped her, then left after giving her $20; DNA linked Reyes to semen found in Daniela's vagina. Reyes admitted the sexual acts but testified they were consensual. Daniela testified she told him “no,” “stop,” and “leave.”
- A jury convicted Reyes of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a(c)(2)), forcible rape (§ 261(a)(2)), lewd acts on a child under 14 (§ 288(a)), and first‑degree burglary (§ 459). The jury found true special circumstance/One‑Strike allegations under Penal Code § 667.61(b),(e) and subdivision (l) (victim 14–17 and burglary with intent to commit the sex offenses).
- At sentencing the trial court imposed an 8‑year determinate term plus one consecutive life without parole term under § 667.61(l), and stayed other § 667.61 sentences; defense counsel conceded sentencing law controlled and preserved an Eighth Amendment objection.
- On appeal Reyes raised: (1) prosecutorial misconduct for a rebuttal comment that Daniela was gay (argued to undermine consent) and for an alleged misstatement/minimization of the reasonable‑doubt standard; (2) sentencing error arguing the court thought it lacked discretion to strike § 667.61(l) findings; and (3) Eighth Amendment and California‑constitional disproportionality claims (and ineffective assistance for failing to preserve the state‑law claim).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions; rejected the prosecutorial‑misconduct claims and the Eighth Amendment and California proportionality claims; held the trial court correctly concluded it lacked § 1385 discretion to strike the § 667.61(l) circumstances; and remanded only to correct the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Reyes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Prosecutor’s rebuttal comment that Daniela was gay (consent) | Comment was a fair rebuttal to defense argument about consent and based on evidence elicited at trial. | Prosecutor improperly raised Daniela's sexual orientation for first time in rebuttal to preclude response and thereby committed misconduct. | No misconduct: orientation was in evidence, comment was responsive to defense closing, not outside record and not so egregious as to deny due process. |
| 2. Prosecutor’s explanation of "reasonable doubt" | Argument did not misstate law when read in context; jury was instructed correctly and presumed to follow instructions. | Prosecutor minimized/diluted reasonable‑doubt standard during rebuttal, reducing People’s burden. | Forfeiture of misconduct claim but also meritless: statements viewed in context and with CALCRIM instructions, no reasonable likelihood of juror confusion; harmless. |
| 3. Sentencing discretion to strike § 667.61(l) findings under § 1385 | § 667.61(g) expressly states "Notwithstanding § 1385"; court has no power to strike the enumerated circumstances—mandatory life‑without‑parole when subdivision (l) applies. | Trial court mistakenly believed it had no discretion and thus should be allowed to reconsider/resentence. | Court correctly held § 667.61(g) precludes striking those findings; no resentencing required. |
| 4. Eighth Amendment / California‑law disproportionality and ineffective assistance | One‑Strike life‑without‑parole sentence is constitutional given gravity of forcible sexual offenses against a minor during burglary. | Sentence is grossly disproportionate; counsel was ineffective for failing to object under state constitution. | Sentence is not cruel and unusual under U.S. Constitution; state‑law claim would have failed, so counsel was not ineffective; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑error standard for constitutional error)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (life without parole and the narrow proportionality principle)
- People v. Coley, 55 Cal.4th 524 (2012) (Eighth Amendment review framework and proportionality analysis)
- People v. Hill, 66 Cal.2d 536 (1967) (prosecutor may respond in rebuttal to defense arguments; limits on improper rebuttal)
- People v. Alvarado, 87 Cal.App.4th 178 (2001) (upholding harsh One‑Strike sentencing for rape during burglary against proportionality challenge)
- People v. Crooks, 55 Cal.App.4th 797 (1997) (upholding indeterminate One‑Strike sentence as not grossly disproportionate)
- People v. Robinson, 31 Cal.App.4th 494 (1995) (reversal where prosecutor deprived defense of meaningful reply by strategy in opening/rebuttal)