People v. Booth

Decision Date12 October 2016
Docket NumberG052666,G047986
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Darrell BOOTH, Defendant and Appellant. In re Darrell Booth on Habeas Corpus.

Suzanne G. Wrubel, Pacific Palisades, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant, Appellant and Petitioner.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood, Meagan J. Beale and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

BEDSWORTH

, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of a deadly shooting that took place in 1992. Although several suspects were identified in the wake of the shooting, the case was not prosecuted until 2011. By that time, an eyewitness who had exonerated petitioner Darrell Booth could not be found, and the case proceeded to trial in his absence. Even without this favorable defense witness, the jury acquitted Booth of first degree murder. It did, however, find Booth guilty of second degree murder, for which he received an indeterminate life sentence. In this consolidated proceeding, Booth challenges his conviction by direct appeal and petition for writ of habeas corpus. Among the claims in his habeas petition, Booth contends his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the case based on precharging delay. We agree with this contention. Therefore, we grant Booth's petition, reverse the judgment and remand the matter for a new trial. In light of this disposition, Booth's appeal is moot.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Shooting

On August 1, 1992, at approximately 1:30 a.m., Stephen Strong drove a red SUV into the parking lot of the 7–Eleven at the corner of 17th Street and Spurgeon in Santa Ana. He was accompanied by his cousins Scottie Strong and Terry Ross. After Stephen backed the SUV into a parking space, Scottie entered the store. Then four black men entered the parking lot on foot. One of the men contacted Stephen, who was sitting in the driver's seat of the SUV. Words were exchanged, and a volley of gunshots rang out.

Following the shooting, the four assailants ran to a white Ford Thunderbird parked nearby and made a successful getaway. The police arrived minutes later to find Stephen lying on the ground near the driver's door of the SUV and Ross slumped in the backseat. Both men were suffering from gunshot wounds

to the chest and abdomen. Stephen was conscious and survived the shooting, but Ross died a short time later at the hospital. Investigators found several shell casings from a nine millimeter semiautomatic handgun at the scene.

B. The Initial Investigation
1. Witness Statements

There were several people in the vicinity of the 7–Eleven when the shooting occurred, but most of them were unable to provide any useful information about the identity of the assailants. The one exception was 17–year–old Charles Honea, who turned out to be an important witness for the state. Honea lived in an apartment complex a block away from the 7–Eleven. About 30 minutes after the shooting, he contacted a police officer at the scene and told him he had been sleeping on the balcony of his second-story apartment when he heard several gunshots. Honea said he looked around from his balcony and saw a young black man with braided hair in an alley nearby. The man was running away from the 7–Eleven toward Honea's apartment. A white car, which Honea described as a late model Mercury Cougar, pulled up to the man and someone inside the vehicle told him to get in, which he did. Then the car left the area. Honea reported he did not see the driver of the car at all, and he did not clearly see the man who entered the car.

Later that morning, the police spoke with Scottie Strong at the hospital. Scottie said he had no information about the shooting. But when the police interviewed him later that day, he was more forthcoming. He stated he was inside the 7–Eleven when the shooting took place. When the smoke cleared, he went outside and saw Stephen lying wounded

in the parking lot. Stephen said they shot us,” but he did not mention any names. Later though, when Scottie spoke to Stephen at the hospital, Stephen said “Spade” had shot him. Scottie told the police Spade was Michael Haslip. He also said he knew Haslip, and it was hard for him to believe Haslip would ever want to shoot Stephen.

The next day, the police interviewed Stephen in his hospital room. He denied knowing who shot him and denied telling Scottie that Haslip was the shooter. However, the police continued to receive information that Haslip was involved in the shooting. There were also numerous reports that Haslip's brother Tommy, who was also known as “Lamont” and “Unknown,” took part in the shooting.

As the investigation unfolded, the police learned Mike Adray and Ellis Bradford might have information about the shooting. Adray operated an electronics business in Orange, and Bradford was a security guard for the business. On August 10, 1992, the police interviewed Adray and Bradford separately. Both interviews were recorded, and both interviews are included in the record before us. Because the interviews are highly relevant to the issues presented in this proceeding, we will recite them in considerable detail.

In his interview, Adray said he spoke to Bradford at his business on Monday, August 3, two days after the shooting. Bradford told him some of his friends had been shot over the weekend. Explaining what occurred, Bradford said he was driving along 17th Street early Saturday morning when he noticed a group of his friends outside Norm's Restaurant, near the 7–Eleven. Bradford drove up to the group and offered to give them a ride home, and three of the men got into his car. They then drove to the 7–Eleven, and Bradford and one of the men went inside to buy some drinks. While they were in the store, gunfire erupted in the parking lot. Bradford opened the front door of the 7–Eleven and saw several people shooting toward his car.

Then one of the shooters turned and aimed his gun at Bradford, prompting him to duck back inside the store for cover. Bradford heard the sound of glass breaking and thought shots were being fired at him. Once the gunfire stopped, he went outside and saw the shooters running away. He also realized the two friends in his car had been shot. When police arrived at the scene, they took Bradford into custody and questioned him for several hours before finally releasing him.

Adray further told the police that, after hearing this story from Bradford, he learned from one of his employees that Bradford never actually spoke to the police and that the shooting did not take place the way Bradford had explained it to him. Adray thus urged Bradford to go to the police and tell them what really happened. Bradford told Adray he was very nervous about the situation. He said the surviving victims knew who the shooters were, and they were not interested in seeking justice through the police and courts. Instead, they and their friends were bent on exacting revenge themselves and had already carried out several retaliatory shootings since the 7–Eleven incident took place. Bradford also said the people seeking revenge had shot “one of their own” because that person had intimated he was going to tell the police about the revenge shootings.

After talking to Adray, the police interviewed Bradford, who told them a very different story from the one he allegedly told Adray. For starters, Bradford said he did not give anyone a ride to the 7–Eleven on the night in question. Rather, he happened to be passing by the store on the way home from a club when he saw his friends Stephen and Scottie Strong in an SUV in the parking lot. Wanting to see what they were up to, Bradford made a u-turn on 17th Street and drove back toward the store. Just as he was about to enter the parking lot of the 7–Eleven, he heard a barrage of gunfire and saw four black men near the Strongs' vehicle. When the shooting stopped, the men scampered to a large white car on Spurgeon Street and made their getaway in the vehicle.

Bradford did not recognize the getaway car, but he did recognize the four assailants as “Lamont,” “Demetri,” “Deb” and “Peewee.” He told the police he was sure these were the men he saw in the parking lot. He also provided a detailed description of the men. Bradford claimed he had seen them around Santa Ana on multiple occasions in the past, but he did know what their real names were or if they still lived in the area. He had heard the men were living in Riverside and that Deb was planning to go to Texas.

Describing the shooting, Bradford said it looked like Demetri and Peewee were both firing shots at the driver's side of the Strongs' SUV. Demetri was closest to the vehicle and appeared to say something to Stephen after he was shot. Bradford also claimed that once he saw all the commotion at the 7–Eleven, he decided not to go into the parking lot and went straight home instead. Thus, as far as he knew, no one was aware he had witnessed the shooting.

Later that day, around noon, Bradford learned Stephen and Ross had been shot and that Ross was dead. Bradford went over to the Strong residence to pay his respects. When he got there, Scottie told him Stephen knew who the shooters were, but Scottie did not divulge their names to Bradford. Nor did Bradford tell Scottie he had seen the shooting. Bradford kept that information to himself because Scottie and Stephen were associated with the Crips gang, and the shooters were believed to be from the Bloods gang. Bradford knew the Crips and Bloods were mortal enemies and that members of the Crips had already been attacking Bloods in retaliation for the 7–Eleven shooting. Bradford did not want to get involved. He feared his life would be in danger if he told anyone what he had seen.

The investigators who spoke to Bradford...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • In re Von Staich
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 20, 2020
    ...of him ‘as the justice of the case may require[.]’ " ( Id. at p. 619, 94 Cal.Rptr. 254, 483 P.2d 1206 ; accord, People v. Booth (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1284, 1312, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.) The Penal Code thus contemplates that a court, faced with a meritorious petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ......
  • Alameda Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. M.B. (In re A.R.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 5, 2021
    ...because habeas carries with it broad authority to fashion appropriate relief for the claimed violation. (E.g., People v. Booth (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1284, 1312, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.) This authority includes the power to conduct such additional proceedings as may be appropriate to remedy the st......
  • Alameda Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. M.B. (In re A.R.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 5, 2021
    ...because habeas carries with it broad authority to fashion appropriate relief for the claimed violation. (E.g., People v. Booth (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1284, 1312, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.) This authority includes the power to conduct such additional proceedings as may be appropriate to remedy the st......
  • Dickerson v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • United States Superior Court (California)
    • August 5, 2019
    ...how to allocate scarce investigative resources and when to file criminal charges in a particular case." ( People v. Booth (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 1284, 1309, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.) Of course, the District Attorney may take a reasonable amount of time to investigate, determine whether to prosecu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Other pretrial motions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...means such as instructing the jury as to the substance of the missing witness’s testimony. See also, People v. Booth , (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 1284, 1313 which held that a defendant’s constitutional right right to a fair trial could be accommodated by ordering a retrial (rather than dismissa......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...§9:29 People v. Bonwit (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 828, §5:112.7 People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, §9:91.15 People v. Booth (2016) 3 Cal. App. 5th 1284, 1313, §6:23 People v. Borlik (2007) (6th Dist. Docket No.H030611, 2007 WL 2011164) (Unpublished), §10:42 People v. Bouser (1994) 26 Cal.Ap......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT