People v. Simmons CA2/7
B307747
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 25, 2022Background
- Defendant Ron Simmons, a member of the "Six Deuce Brims" gang, was linked by cell‑tower records, surveillance images, social media, and possession of recently stolen property to a series of 2017–2018 residential burglaries and associated robberies in the San Gabriel Valley.
- The burglars used a common modus operandi: gather at a Long Beach apartment, drive to target homes at night, break glass doors/windows, carry crowbars, wear all black, ransack quickly; when occupants were home they threatened and sometimes brutally beat them.
- Two victims suffered severe physical injuries: 84‑year‑old Rhee was beaten and rendered unconscious; Truong was beaten, suffered broken ribs, lost multiple teeth, impaired vision, and had a heavy chest placed on her back (charges included mayhem and torture).
- A grand jury indicted Simmons for gang conspiracy (Pen. Code §182.5), multiple first‑degree burglaries and robberies (including attempted robberies), torture (§206), and mayhem (§203); gang special‑circumstance allegations were charged on many counts (§186.22(b)(1)).
- A jury convicted Simmons on most counts and found the gang allegations true; the trial court imposed an aggregate determinate term of 46 years 4 months and a concurrent indeterminate term of 15 years to life.
- On appeal Simmons challenged sufficiency of evidence for several convictions and the gang findings, sought vacatur/stay of the conspiracy sentence under §654, and argued Senate Bill No. 567 requires resentencing (middle term unless aggravators are stipulated or found beyond a reasonable doubt).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for torture (§206): specific intent and natural/probable consequence | Evidence (severity, repeated blows, warnings, injuries) supports sadistic intent and foreseeability of torture as a nontarget crime | Insufficient proof of sadistic purpose or intent beyond robbery/burglary objectives | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports both specific intent and that torture was a natural and probable consequence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for mayhem (§203) | Violent method, crowbar presence, timing, and gang culture made disabling/disfiguring violence foreseeable | Mayhem not shown as reasonably foreseeable from burglary/robbery | Affirmed — mayhem was a natural and probable consequence of the planned burglaries/robberies |
| Aiding and abetting burglaries/robberies (principal liability) | Cell records, surveillance, social posts, possession of stolen property, patterns of conduct show knowledge, intent, and assistance | Simmons claims no direct proof he entered homes, stole items, or drove getaway cars — presence near scenes insufficient | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence (call records, surveillance, possession of stolen goods) supports aiding and abetting convictions |
| Gang enhancement true findings (§186.22(b)(1)) for torture/mayhem | Violent acts furthered gang objectives of intimidation/fear; association and intent inferred from conduct and cell/surveillance evidence | Crimes were for robbery only, not to benefit or promote the gang | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports both the benefit/association and specific intent prongs |
| Whether sentence for gang conspiracy (count 1) must be stayed under §654 | §654 bars multiple punishment when conspiracy had no objective apart from the substantive crimes | People contend conspiracy encompassed broader objectives in indictment | Reversed as to concurrency: court erred — execution of sentence on count 1 must be stayed under §654 |
| Use of upper term without jury finding or defendant stipulation after SB 567 (§1170(b)(2)) | SB 567 is retroactive; no valid defendant stipulation to aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt, so upper terms require jury finding or valid stipulation | People argue defendant "effectively" conceded aggravating facts at sentencing so no relief | Court: SB 567 applies retroactively; counsel's concession did not equal a §1170(b)(2) stipulation; sentence on affected counts vacated and remanded for resentencing under new law |
| Alleged extra 35 years by running determinate consecutive to indeterminate term | Simmons asserts court improperly increased his exposure by running determinate consecutively to count 20 | People say determinate terms properly ordered to run first and aggregate was correctly computed | Held — no error: determinate term computed correctly and runs prior to indeterminate term |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Navarro, 12 Cal.5th 285 (2021) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Hardy, 5 Cal.5th 56 (2018) (natural and probable consequences doctrine for accomplice liability)
- People v. Smith, 60 Cal.4th 603 (2014) (reasonable‑foreseeability test for nontarget offenses)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (2010) (elements and proof framework for gang enhancement §186.22(b)(1))
- People v. Massie, 142 Cal.App.4th 365 (2006) (torture and sadistic purpose inference from gratuitous repeated brutality)
- In re Cruz, 64 Cal.2d 178 (1966) (§654 bars multiple punishment where conspiracy has no independent objective)
- People v. Beman, 32 Cal.App.5th 442 (2019) (analysis when conspiracy and substantive offenses may have separate objectives)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (2007) (harmless‑error standard for denial of jury trial on aggravating circumstances)