People v. Weddington
246 Cal. App. 4th 468
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Three defendants (Weddington, Nunnery, Bashir) were convicted after a jury trial of first-degree burglary, conspiracy to commit residential burglary, four counts of attempted first-degree burglary, felony evading a peace officer (Veh. Code § 2800.2(a)), and possession of burglar’s tools; trial court found gang enhancements true and imposed multi-year prison terms.
- Surveillance and helicopter tracking showed a red Chrysler Sebring slowly cruising San Fernando Valley neighborhoods; the female driver (Bashir) repeatedly knocked on doors and peered into yards while two male passengers remained in the car.
- On Sept. 7 police stopped the Sebring and found burglary tools and gloves; on Sept. 26 the vehicle stopped at multiple houses, the occupants forced entry into one home (Labrador St.), stole items, then fled; a high-speed pursuit ensued, property was thrown from the vehicle, the car crashed, and occupants fled on foot.
- Gang evidence: all three had STGH (Seven Trey Gangster Hustler Crip) tattoos; prior traffic stop produced a handgun with DNA matching Weddington; prosecution’s gang expert testified the pattern ("floccin'" or knock‑knock burglaries) was a signature STGH activity and that the crimes here benefitted/associated with the gang.
- Defendants appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence for attempted burglary convictions (acts were mere preparation), (2) insufficient evidence for gang enhancements, (3) insufficiency for evading convictions for passengers, (4) trial court’s failure to instruct on misdemeanor evading, and (5) sentencing discretion error on burglary-tools count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted burglary convictions | Prosecution: acts (cruising, parking, knocking, peering, burglary tools in car, completed burglary of one house) constituted direct steps beyond mere preparation. | Defendants: knocking/peering and cruising were preparatory scouting only, not an unequivocal commencement of burglary. | Affirmed: totality of the evidence and pattern supported attempt convictions; slight acts after clear intent suffice. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for gang enhancement (§186.22(b)(1)) | Prosecution: tattoos, prior weapons stop, expert linking modus operandi to STGH "floccin'" established association and intent to benefit/assist gang. | Defendants: expert opinion alone insufficient; need direct evidence that crimes were gang-motivated or benefited gang. | Affirmed: substantial evidence defendants were active gang members and committed crimes in association with the gang; expert testimony supported by facts was sufficient. |
| Liability for felony evading (Veh. Code §2800.2) for passengers | Prosecution: evasion was a natural and probable consequence of the burglary/conspiracy; passengers reasonably foresaw reckless flight; they assisted/benefitted and fled on foot after crash. | Defendants: passengers did not drive and could not be convicted of wanton/willful driving; foreseeability of reckless driving was insufficient for felony exposure. | Affirmed: convictions supported under natural-and-probable-consequences and conspiracy/aiding principles; reckless flight was reasonably foreseeable. |
| Duty to instruct on lesser included offense (misdemeanor evading §2800.1) | Defendants: jury should have been instructed sua sponte on misdemeanor evading because evidence could support only misdemeanor liability for passengers. | Prosecution: no substantial evidence the offense was less than charged; passengers’ conduct (throwing items, fleeing) showed participation in reckless escape. | Affirmed: no sua sponte duty—no substantial evidence that only the lesser offense applied; lesser instruction not required. |
| Sentencing discretion on burglary tools (misdemeanor vs felony under §186.22(d)) | Defendants: trial court misunderstood its discretion and failed to exercise it—remand for resentencing required. | Prosecution: defendants forfeited the claim by failing to object or request misdemeanor treatment; record shows the court was aware and exercised discretion. | Affirmed: claim forfeited by silence at sentencing; record reflects the court knew and purposefully stayed the enhanced term. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hajek and Vo, 58 Cal.4th 1144 (Cal. 2014) (attempt requires specific intent and a direct but ineffectual act beyond mere preparation)
- People v. Watkins, 55 Cal.4th 999 (Cal. 2012) (overt act element: conduct showing plan is being put into action)
- People v. Decker (People v. Superior Court), 41 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2007) (recognition that slight acts may constitute attempt when intent is manifest)
- People v. Prince, 40 Cal.4th 1179 (Cal. 2007) (pattern of conduct and completed offenses can support attempted burglary convictions)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (elements and two‑prong framework for gang enhancements under §186.22(b)(1))
- People v. Medina, 46 Cal.4th 913 (Cal. 2009) (natural and probable consequences doctrine—foreseeability standard for accomplice liability)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (trial court's duty to instruct on lesser included offenses when substantial evidence supports them)
- People v. Miller, 2 Cal.2d 527 (Cal. 1935) (line between preparation and attempt: equivocal conduct does not constitute commencement of the crime)