People v. Ruizpaz CA6
H044593
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 25, 2021Background
- In April 2010 Jose Calderon was beaten, stabbed and shot to death at a bus stop in an area viewed as Norteño territory; defendants Carlos Ruizpaz and Jose Jesus Torres (both Sureño affiliates) were convicted of first‑degree murder with gang and firearm enhancements and a gang special circumstance.
- Prosecution’s theory: the killing was an opportunistic retaliatory act by Sureños for an earlier assault on a Sureño (Garcia); testimony and phone/cell‑tower, DNA and ballistic evidence tied defendants and accomplices to the scene and getaway vehicle.
- The prosecution introduced gang evidence, including a 2008 juvenile adjudication showing Ruizpaz carried a loaded firearm, as a predicate offense to prove gang enhancements and to show motive; the trial court admitted the adjudication over Ruizpaz’s Evidence Code §352 objection and gave a limiting instruction (CALCRIM 1403).
- At sentencing both defendants received life without parole for murder plus consecutive 25‑to‑life terms for Penal Code §12022.53(d) firearm enhancements; the court imposed but stayed 10‑year gang enhancements and imposed various fines and fees (including a $240 restitution fine).
- On appeal the defendants raised multiple issues: admissibility of the juvenile adjudication, review of a sealed ex parte hearing transcript, whether remand is required so the trial court can consider newly available discretion to strike firearm enhancements (SB 620), whether stayed gang enhancements must be stricken given LWOP, reduction of restitution fines to the statutory minimum, and whether certain fees/fines were imposed without an ability‑to‑pay finding (Dueñas).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2008 juvenile adjudication as gang predicate and motive | Evidence is a proper §186.22 predicate; probative of gang membership and motive | Admission was more prejudicial than probative under Evid. Code §352 and risked identity/propensity inference | Admissible: trial court did not abuse its §352 discretion; limiting instruction reduced prejudice |
| Review of sealed ex parte transcript after verdict | Prosecutor said information concerned safety and not trial issues | Defendants asked appellate review to ensure no material evidence was withheld | Appellate court reviewed transcript and found no material or relevant information withheld |
| Remand to permit trial court to consider striking firearm enhancements (SB 620) | No opposition; remand appropriate when record doesn’t show court would not have struck enhancements | Defendants requested remand so court can exercise new discretion | Remand ordered for limited resentencing so trial court may consider striking §12022.53(d) enhancements |
| Whether stayed 10‑year gang enhancements must be stricken for LWOP defendants | Gang enhancement proper at trial | Defendants argued enhancement inapplicable to life terms without parole | Gang enhancements stricken: Lopez reasoning applies; §186.22(b)(5) controls for life terms, so the 10‑year add‑on was stricken |
| Restitution fine amount and ineffective assistance claim | $240 imposed as minimum per probation officer; no objection | Attorneys failed to object when court intended to impose statutory minimum ($200 in 2010) | Counsel ineffective for not objecting; restitution fines reduced to $200 for each defendant |
| Ability‑to‑pay challenge to mandatory assessments (Dueñas) | State contends mandatory assessments do not require ability‑to‑pay findings; Dueñas wrongly decided | Defendants argued Dueñas requires ability‑to‑pay hearings before imposing certain assessments and fines | Court declined to follow Dueñas; mandatory assessments and fees not vacated and no ability‑to‑pay finding required under prevailing panel position pending Supreme Court guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Tran, 51 Cal.4th 1040 (Cal. 2011) (framework for admitting other‑crimes evidence in gang cases and §352 balancing)
- People v. Barnwell, 41 Cal.4th 1038 (Cal. 2007) (limits on admitting evidence of other weapons/possession to avoid propensity inference)
- People v. Earle, 172 Cal.App.4th 372 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (discussion of motive vs. identity for cross‑admissibility of uncharged acts)
- People v. Lopez, 34 Cal.4th 1002 (Cal. 2005) (construction of §186.22(b)(5) regarding gang enhancements for life terms)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held ability‑to‑pay findings are required before imposing certain assessments; noted but declined to follow here)