The People v. Valadez
220 Cal. App. 4th 16
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- At ~1:50 a.m. on March 6, 2010, LAPD officers observed a white car slowly (lights off) in rival gang territory; occupants were Frank Uribe (driver) and Daniel Valadez (front passenger) wearing green bandanas. Valadez tossed a loaded semiautomatic handgun from the passenger window when spotted; officers recovered the gun nearby.
- Appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit shooting from a vehicle and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, felon-in-possession of a firearm, and gang enhancements under Penal Code § 186.22(b)(1); prior convictions and strike allegations were admitted/stipulated.
- The prosecution presented Officer Allan Krish as a gang expert who testified Uribe and Valadez were Lowell Street gang members, described Lowell Street history (split from El Sereno), green-light status, tattoos, territory, and opined the conduct was gang-related; defense presented competing gang experts and witnesses denying active gang status or linkage.
- Trial court admitted a parole “general chrono” documenting Valadez’s green-light concerns and parole transfer; the jury convicted both defendants and found the gang and firearm allegations true; sentences imposed and presentence credits awarded were later adjusted on appeal.
- Published portion of the opinion addresses admissibility and confrontation-clause challenges to the gang expert’s testimony; unpublished portions reject other claims (sufficiency, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance) as nonprejudicial; judgment affirmed with modified presentence credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and gang enhancements | Evidence (slow driving into rival turf, bandanas, loaded gun, flight, Krish's gang opinion) shows intent to conspire and gang benefit | Actions insufficient to prove specific intent or active gang; gang evidence weak | Convictions and gang enhancements supported by substantial circumstantial evidence; affirmed |
| Admissibility of gang-expert basis material (hearsay) and Confrontation Clause | Expert may rely on hearsay to form opinions; basis evidence not testimonial here | Reliance on out-of-court statements (gang members, officers) violated hearsay rules and Crawford | Under California law expert reliance on hearsay permitted; even assuming offered for truth, basis material was non‑testimonial (casual/consensual, not formal statements), so no Confrontation Clause violation; testimony admitted |
| Admission of parole chrono and parole officer testimony; Mongols tattoo evidence | Chrono and parole testimony probative of intent, lack of mistake, gang status; public-record/admission exceptions apply | Statements were prejudicial hearsay and should be excluded; Mongols evidence irrelevant and prejudicial | Chrono and related testimony admissible and not unduly prejudicial; Mongols tattoo reference was excluded and jury instructed to disregard, curing any prejudice |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and related trial errors (expert hypotheticals, remarks about missing witness, Mongols inquiry) | Prosecution’s questioning and argument improperly shifted burden, elicited inadmissible evidence, and denigrated rights | Prosecutor acted within bounds; any error was cured by court’s rulings/instructions | No reversible misconduct: contested expert remark was struck and jury instructed; comment about absent witness properly targeted logical witness, not defendant silence; excluded Mongols material cured by instruction |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (various tactical choices) | Defense counsel erred (failed to call West Covina officers, opened door to custody evidence, failed to move for mistrial) | Tactical decisions had plausible bases and did not prejudice defendants | No ineffective assistance shown on record; where questioned choices existed, any adverse testimony was cumulative and nonprejudicial |
| Presentence custody credit calculation | Appellants contend more conduct credits under pre‑Oct‑2011 §4019 rates | State (AG) concedes 15% violent felony formula inapplicable; computes appropriate credits under earlier law and admitted strike status | Modify judgments: Uribe awarded 1,112 days (742 actual + 370 conduct); Valadez 890 days (742 actual + 148 conduct); otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bradford, 15 Cal.4th 1229 (standard for substantial evidence review) (explains whole‑record circumstantial evidence review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (requirements for gang enhancement under § 186.22)
- People v. Gardeley, 14 Cal.4th 605 (permitting gang experts to rely on hearsay and describing basis for expert opinions)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause governs testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (test for testimonial versus nontestimonial statements; ongoing emergency doctrine)