People v. Runderson CA5
F074056A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 29, 2021Background
- Three defendants (Isaiah Runderson, Donte Hawkins, Jalonie Jones) were convicted by jury of attempted murder, second‑degree robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon; various gang and firearm (§ 12022.53) enhancements were found true.
- Facts: victim Brandon M. met the defendants in Fresno; a robbery/shooting occurred; Brandon identified Jones as the shooter in a photo lineup and at trial; Jones’s palm print was found on the victim’s car.
- The prosecution relied on gang‑expert testimony (Detective Fry and Officer Mayo) to prove the Fly Boys gang, predicate offenses, and that the crimes were gang‑motivated; much of the expert’s predicate‑offense testimony was based on police reports, field interviews, and social media.
- On appeal the defendants challenged (inter alia) sufficiency of gang evidence, admissibility of the gang expert’s case‑specific hearsay (Confrontation Clause/Evidence Code), limitations on cross‑examination, § 12022.53(d) vicarious enhancements, and Jones sought a Prop. 57 transfer.
- After this court’s earlier opinion and Supreme Court review, the case was remanded in light of People v. Valencia; this opinion reaffirms reversal of the gang enhancements (and related §12022.53(d) findings) and remands for resentencing and a juvenile transfer hearing for Jones under Prop. 57.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Appellants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for gang enhancement (§186.22(b)) | Expert testimony and other evidence (photos, social media, testimony) supported existence of Fly Boys, predicate acts, and gang motive. | Evidence was insufficient to show an ongoing gang, pattern of predicate acts, or that crimes were gang‑motivated. | Although there was factual evidence, the gang enhancement findings were reversed because the expert’s case‑specific hearsay proof of predicate perpetrators was inadmissible and not harmless. |
| Admissibility / Confrontation: gang expert’s testimony about predicate offenses (Sanchez/Valencia issues) | Expert may rely on reports as background; admissible to prove pattern and motive. | Expert’s reliance on out‑of‑court testimonial hearsay (police reports, interviews) violated Evid. Code and Crawford rights. | Expert testimony identifying predicate perpetrators as gang members was case‑specific hearsay; under Sanchez/Valencia it was inadmissible and its admission was prejudicial — gang findings reversed. |
| § 12022.53(d) vicarious firearm enhancement and notice | The information and verdicts fairly notified defendants; jury found Jones discharged the firearm and found principals under §12022.53(e)(1), supporting vicarious application to aiders/abettors. | Runderson and Hawkins lacked fair notice that §12022.53(d) (vicarious) would be applied to them; verdicts did not explicitly make requisite findings. | Defendants forfeited contemporaneous objection to notice, and the pleadings/ verdicts provided notice; nonetheless the §12022.53(d)/(e) findings were struck because the gang findings they depended on were reversed. |
| Senate Bill No. 620 (trial court discretion to strike §12022.53 enhancements) | Retroactive; People concede. Remand unnecessary for some defendants. | Remand required so trial court can exercise post‑SB620 discretion. | Remand required: sentencing court stated it believed it lacked discretion; trial court must be allowed to consider striking firearm enhancements under §12022.53(h). |
| Pretrial photographic identification (Jones) | Lineup was proper; victim’s ID was reliable. | Procedure was suggestive and tainted; counsel ineffective for failing to object. | Identification was not unduly suggestive and was reliable under totality of circumstances; claim forfeited and insufficient to overturn convictions. |
| Proposition 57 (juvenile transfer for Jones) | N/A | Jones (16 at offense) argued Prop. 57 requires juvenile transfer hearing. | Jones’s convictions/sentence conditionally reversed and remanded to juvenile court for transfer hearing; if transfer would not have occurred, treat convictions as juvenile adjudications; if transfer would have occurred, reinstate convictions and resentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Valencia, 11 Cal.5th 818 (2021) (gang‑expert testimony about predicate offenses must be supported by independently admissible evidence)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (2016) (expert may not relate case‑specific hearsay on matters treated as true without confrontation/hearsay safeguards)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (1997) (pre‑Sanchez authority on experts relying on hearsay to form opinions; later limited)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (2010) (jury may infer gang purpose when defendant acts with known gang members)
- People v. Garcia, 28 Cal.4th 1166 (2002) (elements for vicarious application of §12022.53 enhancements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay absent prior cross‑examination or unavailability)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (prosecution must show constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (2015) (an informal group can qualify as an "organization" under gang statute; degree of togetherness required)