People v. Xotoy CA2/8
B303336
Cal. Ct. App.Jul 28, 2021Background
- Defendant Santos Leonel Xotoy ended a four‑year relationship with Elvia Lopez Gomez, suspected Lopez of an affair with coworker Higinio Gonzalez, and examined Lopez’s phone for messages.
- On May 9, 2016, Xotoy went to the clothing factory where Lopez and Gonzalez worked, summoned Gonzalez to an alley, drew a gun, and shot Gonzalez three times; Gonzalez died.
- Lopez intervened, was grabbed by Xotoy, and a shot was fired into the ground; coworkers detained Xotoy until police arrived.
- At trial the jury was instructed on heat of passion (voluntary manslaughter) but convicted Xotoy of murder; Xotoy appealed.
- Xotoy argued (1) prosecutor misstated the legal standard for heat of passion in closing (relying on People v. Beltran), (2) ineffective assistance for failing to argue striking firearm enhancements at sentencing, and (3) Dueñas challenge to fines/fees (forfeited below).
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Xotoy’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s closing allegedly misdescribed heat‑of‑passion standard (Beltran) | Any misstatement (if occurred) was harmless under Watson given weak/contradicted provocation evidence | Prosecutor’s statements misapplied Beltran and prejudiced the jury | Assumed possible transgression but error harmless under Watson; conviction affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance at sentencing for not arguing to strike firearm enhancements | Trial court knew and exercised discretion; Xotoy identifies no persuasive arguments counsel could have made | Counsel should have advocated striking firearm enhancements under Penal Code discretion | No prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Challenge to fines/fees under Dueñas | Forfeiture applies where defendant did not object below | Court should review fines/fees under Dueñas despite no objection | Argument forfeited for appellate review; claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Beltran, 56 Cal.4th 935 (clarifies proper heat‑of‑passion standard and reviews prosecutor misstatements)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (harmless‑error standard requiring reasonable probability of a more favorable result)
- People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal.4th 263 (provocation must be caused by the victim)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (ability‑to‑pay concerns for certain fees/fines)
- People v. Frandsen, 33 Cal.App.5th 1126 (forfeiture of Dueñas challenge when not raised below)