People v. Vega CA1/4
A153620
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 11, 2022Background
- In February 2016 Robert James Vega, a military veteran with a PTSD history, shot and killed Augustine Vegas (his de facto father‑in‑law) during a psychotic episode; Vega pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI).
- Defense theory: brief/temporary psychotic disorder triggered by acute stress and PTSD; defense experts (Drs. Howard and Pittavino) concluded Vega was legally insane. Prosecution theory: psychosis was cannabis‑induced; prosecution expert (Dr. Ferranti) diagnosed cannabis‑induced psychotic disorder and opined Vega was sane.
- Jury acquitted Vega of murder, convicted him of voluntary manslaughter, found the firearm enhancement true, and found Vega sane at the time of the offense; he was sentenced to 21 years.
- On appeal Vega raised prosecutorial misconduct in the sanity‑phase closing, ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and sentencing), improper expert designation, failures under mental‑health diversion/probation statutes, and sentencing errors. Most claims were rejected or forfeited.
- Court conditionally vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under newly enacted Senate Bill No. 567 (retroactive changes to triad sentencing). Judgment otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Vega) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in sanity‑phase closing | Prosecutor's remarks were within bounds, not deceptive, and Vega forfeited review by not objecting | Remarks involved vouching, misstating law and evidence, and discrediting defense experts | Claims forfeited for lack of contemporaneous objection; appellate review declined; IAC claim for failure to object rejected as counsel reasonably tactical and not prejudicial |
| Ineffective assistance (failure to object/present evidence in guilt/sanity phases) | Counsel made reasonable tactical choices, and failures would not have changed outcome | Counsel failed to object to expert testimony, statistics, and prosecutor misstatements; counsel failed to present/argue mitigating evidence | Record shows tactical reasons or no prejudice; Strickland standard not met; claims denied |
| Expert designation (Dr. Ferranti as NGI/forensic psychiatry expert) | Ferranti had forensic psychiatry subspecialty, experience with NGI assessments—court properly admitted her as expert | Designation improperly ventured into ultimate issue and exceeded proper scope | Court did not abuse discretion; designation appropriate; jury decides weight of credentials/opinions |
| Consideration of service‑related PTSD for probation/diversion (§1170.9 and §1001.36) | Trial court adequately considered factors and found Vega presumptively ineligible for probation; diversion statutes not applicable | Court failed to make required §1170.9 finding and should have considered diversion/retroactivity | Vega forfeited §1170.9 claim; court found he was ineligible for probation; diversion under §1001.36 unavailable because statutory eligibility was later narrowed; retroactivity arguments rejected |
| Sentencing relief / remand under recent legislation (SB 620, SB 567) | SB 567 (2022) is retroactive and may affect triad selection; AG concedes remand appropriate; SB 620 (2018) retroactivity unnecessary because trial court would not have struck enhancement | Vega seeks resentencing under new rules and discretion to strike enhancements | Conditional vacatur and remand ordered for resentencing under SB 567 provisions; remand for SB 620 discretion denied as pointless because trial court stated it would not strike the enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rivera, 7 Cal.5th 306 (Cal. 2019) (standards for prosecutorial misconduct and forfeiture)
- People v. Centeno, 60 Cal.4th 659 (Cal. 2015) (IAC review where counsel failed to object)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) (forfeiture and dual‑use sentencing issues)
- People v. Moberly, 176 Cal.App.4th 1191 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (dual use of aggravating facts to support base term and enhancement)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption favoring retroactive application of ameliorative statutes)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (retroactivity of diversion statute applications)
- People v. Allison, 39 Cal.App.5th 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (SB 620 retroactivity and remand guidance)
- People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 2007) (a single aggravating circumstance can justify the upper term)
- People v. Letner & Tobin, 50 Cal.4th 99 (Cal. 2010) (presumption jury follows instruction that argument is not evidence)