People v. Vela
11 Cal. App. 5th 68
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2009, 16‑year‑old Adrian Vela and gangmate Christopher Ochoa confronted two suspected rival gang members during a "hit up;" Ochoa produced a gun, shot both victims (one fatally), and Vela fled with him. Vela was tried as an adult, convicted of murder, attempted murder, and a gang offense, and received an aggregate term of 72 years‑to‑life, including two 25‑to‑life gang‑related firearm enhancements.
- Evidence showed Vela and Ochoa went looking for rivals, discussed a firearm in the car, approached the victims together, and Vela made a boastful statement after the shooting. A gang expert testified a "hit up" carries a high risk of violence and gang members are expected to provide backup, including use of firearms.
- The jury was instructed on accomplice liability under the natural‑and‑probable‑consequences doctrine using CALCRIM pattern instructions; involuntary manslaughter was not given as a lesser included offense.
- Vela raised instructional errors (accomplice liability and lesser‑included instruction), an equal‑protection challenge to the gang firearm enhancement, and an Eighth Amendment/cruel‑and‑unusual punishment challenge to his de facto life term for juvenile offender.
- While the appeal was pending, Proposition 57 (eliminating prosecutors’ discretionary direct filing of certain juveniles in adult court and requiring a juvenile transfer hearing) became effective; the court held Proposition 57 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases and remanded for a juvenile transfer hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of CALCRIM natural‑and‑probable‑consequences instruction | Instruction was proper because evidence supported that a "hit up" made murder a reasonably foreseeable consequence | Instruction improper because target was a misdemeanor and murder cannot be a nontarget consequence of a misdemeanor | Court held instruction proper; substantial evidence supported foreseeability and the doctrine applies even when the target is a misdemeanor |
| Duty to instruct on involuntary manslaughter (lesser included) | No duty because evidence showed the killing was intentional | Court should have instructed on involuntary manslaughter | Court held no sua sponte duty to instruct; no substantial evidence supported involuntary manslaughter |
| Equal protection challenge to gang‑related aider/abettor enhancement (Pen. Code § 12022.53(e)) | Enhancement rationally distinguishes greater public danger; applies to aiders/abettors in gang context | Differential treatment violates equal protection | Court rejected equal protection challenge; classification bears rational basis and prior appellate decisions support it |
| Eighth Amendment/juvenile cruel‑and‑unusual claim to lengthy de facto life term | Sentence is cruel/unusual given juvenile status and length | Legislature’s youth parole laws (Pen. Code § 3051) and Franklin decision address parole eligibility making challenge moot | Court treated claim as effectively mooted by § 3051 and Franklin but remanded for a Franklin‑style hearing to ensure Vela had opportunity to place youth‑related evidence on record |
| Retroactivity and remedy under Proposition 57 (transfer hearings) | Proposition 57 should apply retroactively to cases not final; remedy is juvenile transfer hearing rather than automatic reversal | AG argued Estrada retroactivity limited to statutes that unambiguously reduce penalty | Court applied Estrada/Francis reasoning, held Prop 57 retroactive to nonfinal cases; conditionally reversed and remanded to juvenile court for transfer hearing; convictions reinstated if transfer would have occurred |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Prettyman, 14 Cal.4th 248 (Cal. 1996) (natural‑and‑probable‑consequences instruction standard)
- People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (Cal. 2009) (accomplice liability: nontarget murder can be foreseeable consequence of misdemeanor assault)
- People v. Olguin, 31 Cal.App.4th 1355 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (accomplice liability principles)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (juveniles may not receive capital punishment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (LWOP unconstitutional for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional; courts must consider youth mitigating factors)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (application of § 3051 youth offender parole hearings and remand for record to support parole consideration)
- Estrada v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (principle favoring retroactive application of ameliorative statutory changes)
- People v. Francis, 71 Cal.2d 66 (Cal. 1969) (Estrada applied when statute vests trial court with discretion producing potentially lesser sentence)
- People v. Cervantes, 9 Cal.App.5th 569 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (addressing Proposition 57 transfer hearing issues)