People v. Rodriguez
232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 707
Cal.2018Background
- May 26, 2004: Ernestina Tizoc killed in a drive-by shooting at Oregon Park; witnesses saw a white Chevrolet Blazer with occupants making Sureño gang signs.
- Four juveniles (Rodriguez, age 15; Barajas, age 16; Garcia; Acosta) were detained same day; Garcia testified he, Rodriguez, Barajas, and others searched for Norteños and that Barajas fired multiple shots.
- Defendants tried jointly and convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and active participation in a criminal street gang; jury found a principal personally used a firearm causing death.
- Each defendant received an aggregate sentence of 50 years to life (25-to-life for murder plus a consecutive 25-to-life firearm enhancement); trial court did not consider youth-related factors at sentencing.
- On appeal and review, two principal issues arose: (1) whether accomplice testimony against Barajas was sufficiently corroborated under Cal. Penal Code § 1111 and Romero & Self; and (2) whether Rodriguez’s Eighth Amendment challenge to his 50-to-life sentence was mooted or required remand under Franklin given post‑sentencing youth‑parole statutes (§§ 3051, 4801) and recent statutory amendments to firearm enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of corroboration for Barajas (accomplice testimony) | AG conceded accomplice testimony insufficiently corroborated; other non‑accomplice evidence did not connect Barajas to the crime | Barajas: convictions rested solely on uncorroborated accomplice testimony and must be reversed | Court reversed Barajas’s convictions and ordered judgment of acquittal (insufficient corroboration under §1111; double jeopardy bars retrial) |
| Mootness / opportunity to make record for youth‑offender parole (Rodriguez) | AG: eligibility for youth offender parole hearings renders Eighth Amendment challenge moot; trial record and probation/fitness reports supply relevant info | Rodriguez: sentenced before SB260; lacked notice/opportunity at sentencing to develop youth‑related record for future parole hearings and thus is entitled to remand | Court remanded Rodriguez to Court of Appeal to direct trial court to allow supplementation of the record with youth‑related information and to consider SB620/§12022.53(h) applicability; Eighth Amendment challenge treated as moot conditional on adequate opportunity to make record (per Franklin) |
| Applicability of SB620 / §12022.53(h) to firearm enhancements (Rodriguez) | AG: N/A (court should have trial court consider new discretionary authority to strike enhancements) | Rodriguez: SB620 gives courts authority to strike §12022.53 enhancements in interest of justice; requests resentencing consideration | Court directed that on remand the trial court consider whether §12022.53(h) authorizes striking or dismissing the firearm enhancement and resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Romero and Self, 62 Cal.4th 1 (underscores §1111 corroboration requirement for accomplice testimony)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (remand required when defendants sentenced before SB260 to permit record-making for youth‑offender parole eligibility)
- Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (reversal for insufficient evidence equates to acquittal; double jeopardy bars retrial)
- People v. Najera, 43 Cal.4th 1132 (discussion of unreliability of accomplice testimony and §1111)
- People v. Seel, 34 Cal.4th 535 (double jeopardy and appellate reversals for insufficient evidence)
- People v. Belton, 23 Cal.3d 516 (judgment of acquittal where §1111 not satisfied)
- People v. Szeto, 29 Cal.3d 20 (contrast case where corroboration supported conviction)
- People v. Pedroza, 231 Cal.App.4th 635 (trial court finding under §1111 deemed insufficient evidence)