People v. Sanchez CA5
F070581
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Javier Francisco Sanchez was charged with murder and enhancements for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm (Pen. Code § 12022.53(c) and (d)); he pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Pretrial sanity and competency evaluations were obtained; sanity experts found legal insanity at the time of the offense, competency evaluators found him competent with medication; court found him competent and trial proceeded.
- A jury convicted Sanchez of murder and found the firearm enhancements true; after the guilty verdict but before a sanity-phase trial, Sanchez (against counsel’s advice) withdrew his insanity plea and waived the sanity phase.
- At sentencing the court imposed 15-to-life for murder plus 25-to-life under § 12022.53(d); the § 12022.53(c) enhancement was found true but stayed under § 654.
- On appeal Sanchez raised three issues: (1) Batson/Wheeler challenge to prosecution’s strikes of female jurors; (2) challenge to the court’s acceptance of his withdrawal of the insanity plea; and (3) challenge to imposition/staying of the § 12022.53(c) enhancement as an included offense of (d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense made prima facie showing of gender discrimination in prosecutor’s peremptory strikes | Prosecution: no prima facie case; strikes justified by voir dire answers | Sanchez: prosecutor struck six women (first six strikes) suggesting discriminatory purpose | Court: substantial evidence supported trial court’s finding no prima facie showing; many strikes had non-discriminatory bases and many women remained in panel |
| Whether trial court erred by allowing withdrawal of insanity plea | People: court may accept competent defendant’s voluntary withdrawal | Sanchez: court had discretion to refuse withdrawal; withdrawal over counsel’s objection violated Sixth Amendment | Court: defendant was competent, understood consequences, and withdrawal was voluntary; court properly accepted it |
| Whether § 12022.53(c) enhancement must be reversed as included in (d) | People: when multiple § 12022.53 findings exist, impose longest term and stay others per § 12022.53(f) and precedent | Sanchez: (c) is an included offense of (d) and must be reversed | Court: followed People v. Gonzalez — impose longest enhancement and stay the rest; (c) properly stayed |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits racial discrimination in peremptory challenges)
- Wheeler v. California, 22 Cal.3d 258 (establishes California Batson framework)
- J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (extends Batson to gender-based strikes)
- People v. Scott, 61 Cal.4th 363 (describes three-step Wheeler/Batson inquiry and relevant factors)
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (requires imposing longest § 12022.53 enhancement and staying others)