People v. Vasquez
F078228
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 27, 2021Background:
- Defendants Guillermo Vasquez and Nicky Diaz Carrillo were tried for first‑degree murder; a trifurcated trial addressed guilt, gang/principal‑shooter enhancements, and Vasquez’s prior prison‑term enhancements.
- Phase 1: Jury convicted both of first‑degree murder and found personal firearm‑use (§12022.53(d)) true (later stipulated not to reflect both personally discharging the fatal shot); Phase 2: jury found gang enhancement (§186.22(b)(1)) and principal discharge (§12022.53(e)(1)) true as to both; court found Vasquez’s §667.5(b) priors true in Phase 3.
- Key evidence: surveillance footage placing Vasquez and Carrillo together shortly before and after the shooting; a .357 revolver and ammunition linked by DNA to Vasquez; Carrillo’s sweatshirt and mask with his DNA found in the motel room; spent rounds recovered near the room; bystanders heard multiple shots and victim died of a femoral artery gunshot wound.
- Gang evidence: prosecution gang expert linked both defendants to the Sureños (umbrella gang) based on tattoos, prior contacts, admissions, and local gang structure; defense expert testified gang membership/associations are complex and crimes can be non‑gang related.
- Sentences: Vasquez—25 years‑to‑life + 25 years‑to‑life (firearm) + three years (former §667.5(b)) ; Carrillo—25 years‑to‑life + 25 years‑to‑life (firearm). Both appealed.
- Disposition: Court affirmed both convictions and enhancements, but—accepting the Attorney General’s concession—struck Vasquez’s three one‑year §667.5(b) prison‑term enhancements under retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 136.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gang enhancement evidence satisfied Prunty’s “sameness” requirement when defendants belonged to different Sureño subsets | People argued the prosecution proved defendants were members of the umbrella Sureño gang (not just subsets), so no separate subset‑to‑umbrella connection was required | Carrillo argued Prunty requires proof of a connection between local subsets and the broader Sureños when predicate offenses are shown via subset conduct | Held: Substantial evidence showed both defendants were Sureños; because the umbrella gang itself satisfied the elements, no additional subset‑link evidence was required (Prunty not triggered) |
| Whether there was substantial evidence the murder was gang‑related (first prong of §186.22(b)(1)) | People relied on expert testimony that both defendants were gang members who acted together and the circumstances supported an association | Defendants argued lack of usual gang indicia (slogans, signs, clothing) and neutral location undermined gang‑relatedness | Held: Sufficient evidence two or more gang members committed the crime in association; gang‑relatedness satisfied even without overt slogans or clothing |
| Whether defendants had requisite specific intent to promote/assist gang activity (second prong of §186.22(b)(1)) | People argued commission of the murder with known gang members permits inference of specific intent to assist/promote gang criminal conduct | Defendants argued no direct evidence of intent to further gang objectives beyond the homicide | Held: Jury could reasonably infer specific intent from defendants committing the murder together as known gang members; second prong satisfied |
| Whether imposing fines/fees without an ability‑to‑pay hearing violated due process or the Excessive Fines Clause (Vasquez) | People (and appellate majority) relied on People v. Aviles to argue no constitutional right to preassessment ability‑to‑pay hearing and fines/fees were not excessive | Vasquez argued sentencing court violated due process by imposing fines/fees without finding ability to pay; sought preservation for Supreme Court review | Held: Majority rejected due‑process claim (Aviles controlling) and found fines/fees not grossly disproportionate; concurrence would remand per Montes/Dueñas principles to allow ability‑to‑pay record development |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (explains the "sameness" requirement when predicate offenses involve subsets and an umbrella gang)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (Cal. 1996) (sets elements for establishing a criminal street gang under the STEP Act)
- People v. Pettie, 16 Cal.App.5th 23 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (discusses when proving an umbrella gang that itself satisfies gang elements obviates subset‑link evidence)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (gang‑enhancement law; inference of specific intent when defendants act with known gang members)
- People v. Weddington, 246 Cal.App.4th 468 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (analyzes the two prongs of §186.22(b)(1): gang‑relatedness and specific intent)
- People v. Aviles, 39 Cal.App.5th 1055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held no constitutional right to preassessment ability‑to‑pay hearing before imposition of fines/fees)
- People v. Gastelum, 45 Cal.App.5th 757 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (applies Senate Bill No. 136 retroactively to strike inapplicable §667.5(b) prior‑term enhancements)