People v. Cleveland

Decision Date25 March 2004
Docket NumberNo. S024416,S024416
Citation11 Cal.Rptr.3d 236,86 P.3d 302,32 Cal.4th 704
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Dellano Leroy CLEVELAND and Chauncey Jamal Veasley, Defendants and Appellants.

Lynne S. Coffin, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Donald J. Ayoob, Assistant State Public Defender, and Stephanie Clarke, Deputy State Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant Dellano LeRoy Cleveland.

David Joseph Macher, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Murrieta; and Jill M. Bojarski, Tustin, for Defendant and Appellant Chauncey Jamal Veasley.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, John R. Gorey and Joseph P. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certiorari Denied January 10, 2005. See 125 S.Ct. 867

CHIN, J.

A jury convicted defendants Dellano Leroy Cleveland and Chauncey Jamal Veasley, as well as codefendant Rajeesh Prasad Charan, of robbing and murdering Anthony Nelson and Charles Hunter and of conspiring to commit murder. (Pen.Code, §§ 182, 187, 211.)1 The jury found the murders to be in the first degree and under the special circumstances of multiple murder and robbery murder. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (17).) As to the murders and robberies, the jury also found that a principal was armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) The jury found that each defendant either was the actual killer, or intended to kill, or "with reckless indifference to human life and as a major participant," aided and abetted another in the commission of the robberies. (§ 190.2, subds.(b), (c), (d).) Both Cleveland and Veasley admitted a prior conviction allegation. (§ 667, subd. (a).)

The court bifurcated Veasley's penalty trial from that of Cleveland and Charan. At the conclusion of the penalty trials, the same jury returned a verdict of death as to all three defendants. The court denied Cleveland's and Veasley's automatic motions to modify the verdict (§ 190.4) and sentenced them to death.2 This appeal is automatic. (§ 1239, subd. (b).) We affirm the judgments.

I. The Facts
A. Guilt Phase
1. Prosecution Evidence

In the evening of October 12, 1990, the bullet-ridden bodies of Anthony Nelson and Charles Hunter, both drug dealers, were found lying down in room 140 of the All Star Inn in Pomona. They had died of multiple gunshot wounds, most but not all in the head. Both received four head wounds, each of which alone might have been fatal. The evidence showed that a single gun, probably a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol, fired all of the bullets. The left pockets of both victims had been pulled out and were empty. Jewelry that Nelson normally possessed, including a watch, was missing.

Room 140 was at the back of the motel, not visible from the office. It had not been rented that day. It appeared the door to the room had been kicked in. Motel records showed that the nearby room 138 had been rented to "DeChauncey Veasley" on September 26, 1990. Some blood found at the scene was type A. That blood could not have come from either victim, but it might have come from Cleveland, as well as about a third of the general population. There was not enough of the blood for further typing. Veasley's fingerprints were found on the inside of the front door of room 140, above the doorknob.

Evidence showed that earlier on the day of the murders, the three defendants had invaded the Hesperia home of Jesus Valles, sometimes called "Chuey," who was also a drug dealer. A gunfight ensued in which Valles and Cleveland were both shot in the hand. Some of the bullets fired in this fight came from the same gun later used in the murders.

Dorcey Jackson testified that she introduced Nelson (known as "Rick") to Veasley (known as "Ocean") in July or August 1990. Sometimes she also saw Veasley with both Nelson and Hunter. In testimony admitted only against Veasley, Jackson said that Nelson and Veasley talked about engaging in drug transactions. She sometimes heard Veasley call Nelson on the telephone, and then Nelson would appear and talk about drug transactions.

At the time of the murders, Nelson lived in San Dimas with his girlfriend, Nicole Brown (who was Hunter's cousin), and Nelson's cousin, Arthur Walker. On the day of the murders, Hunter came to their house with a beeper. At one point, the beeper went off. Hunter looked at the beeper and said, "It's Ocean" (Veasley). Hunter made a telephone call, then gave the telephone to Nelson, who spoke for a while. A short time later, the telephone rang again. Nelson answered it and spoke for about five or 10 minutes. Then Nelson went into another room where he kept cocaine. He returned with a plastic bag containing what Walker estimated was about two or three ounces of rock cocaine. Nelson handed the bag to Hunter. The two then left around 2:00 p.m. Nelson said he was "going to the All Star" and would "be back in about a half hour." He indicated to Walker that he was going to "make a sale." Nelson and Hunter never returned.

Bobbie Jean Peterson, Veasley's wife at the time of these events, testified that in October 1990, she lived in Hesperia. It took about 30 to 45 minutes to drive between Hesperia and Pomona. Veasley did not live with her at the time, but he sometimes visited. On October 11, 1990, Peterson was at her home with Veasley and Cleveland. She heard the two defendants talk "about going up the street later on in the evening when it got dark because they were going to rob" the house of a drug dealer called Chuey.

The next day, October 12, both defendants were again at her home. Veasley said that they had to get to Chuey's before noon. Veasley told Cleveland that he, Veasley, would have "to sit in the car because Chuey knew him," and that the others should "go in, get the money and get the drugs and meet him back outside." Later, both Cleveland's brother and codefendant Charan arrived. There was talk that "they had been waiting on them, let's go." Around 10:00 or 11:00 a.m., the defendants, Cleveland's brother, and Charan left together. They returned about an hour later.

Cleveland said he had been shot in the hand and asked Peterson to take out the bullet. He was bleeding on his hand, his clothes, and onto the floor. Peterson told him she could not take the bullet out, and he had to go to the hospital. Veasley was angry with Cleveland "because things hadn't went as planned." He said Cleveland "was getting weak and ... he should have blasted all those people." Cleveland said "that there was another guy there and they had only expected one guy, they hadn't expected there to be shooting...." He also said he "wasn't getting weak and that if [Veasley] thought of something else he would see ... he was not weak." Veasley responded that it was "okay, that they could do something else." Cleveland said "that was okay with him."

Veasley said that "he was currently buying cocaine from a man named Rick down the hill. That he could beep this person, put in his code and that this man would call him right back. When he did that they could have ... Rick meet them at a motel room and that they could take the drugs from him instead of paying for it." Cleveland said that was "fine." Veasley also said "they could go to Pomona and bump off his supplier." Veasley then paged Nelson. After about 10 minutes the telephone rang. While they were waiting for the call, Veasley told the others that "they could go to the All Star Inn in Pomona, that the security was lax there during the day." Veasley said that "they could go to a back room and kick in the door. And that he would go use another phone and call Rick and tell Rick where he was because he had already dealt with Rick at that motel before so it wouldn't be anything unusual. He said he would tell Rick what room and that he would go back over there and that the other men could wait in the bathroom and then when Rick got there they could come out." Cleveland said, "Okay."

When the telephone rang, Veasley answered. Peterson heard him say on the telephone "that he was on his way down the hill and that he needed to buy three ounces." He also said that he had "some people with him, some people that had invested money, but they would leave the minute Rick got there." Veasley told Nelson that "he was going to get a motel and that he will call him." After the telephone call, Veasley told the others that "Rick would come with another guy, that he always brought a smoker," i.e., a cocaine user, "with him." Veasley also said "that they had to be taken care of because Rick knew him, knew the phone number to [Peterson's] house and that he [Veasley] had a wife and kids." Veasley called Nelson a "hollypopper" — a person who sells drugs but is not "street wise." He said that Nelson did not carry a gun. Nelson, he said, "had a lot of money and ... wouldn't know any better. He wouldn't know not to go make a big deal like that at a motel room."

Cleveland asked which gun they should use. At this point, Peterson noticed that Charan had a handgun. Cleveland asked whether they should take the "nine millimeter or ... the rifle." Charan said he did not want to use the nine-millimeter, which he referred to as his, "because they had just used it up the street." Cleveland said that "they should use the nine millimeter because a rifle was too loud, even if they shot it through a pillow, and that rifle made a lot of mess." They decided to use the nine-millimeter. Someone said they did not think the Hesperia matter would be connected with Nelson in Pomona. Peterson received a telephone call around this time from Jackson's son, Bobby. Veasley told Bobby he was on his way to Pomona to rob "you know who." Veasley, Cleveland, and Charan left around noon. By this time Cleveland was no longer bleeding.

Cleveland and Veasley returned around 8:00 or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
523 cases
  • People v. Miles
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 28, 2020
    ...trial court20 further "suggest[s] counsel concurred in the assessment that the juror was excusable." ( People v. Cleveland , supra , 32 Cal.4th at p. 735, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 236, 86 P.3d 302 ; cf. Witt , supra , 469 U.S. at p. 435, 105 S.Ct. 844 [where counsel did not question the juror or obje......
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • May 31, 2018
    ...groups. All that is prohibited is challenging a person because the person is a member of that group." ( People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 733, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 236, 86 P.3d 302.) But the circumstances are troubling. The fact the prosecutor excused all possible African-Americans is a ......
  • People v. Delgado
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2017
    ...burden of proof where the instructions as a whole correctly instructed the jury on that burden. (People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 751, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 236, 86 P.3d 302 (Cleveland ).) Contrary to defendant's argument, there is no reason to presume the jury would equate the word "con......
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 19, 2017
    ...was unlikely the prosecutor would be concerned about minorities unduly identifying with the defendant"]; People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 733, 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 236, 86 P.3d 302 [circumstance that both defendants and victim were of the same race as challenged jurors supported finding......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...People v. Clay, 227 Cal. App. 2d 87, 38 Cal. Rptr. 431, 100 A.L.R.2d 1421 (1st Dist. 1964)—Ch. 2, §11.1.1(1)(l) People v. Cleveland, 32 Cal. 4th 704, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236, 86 P.3d 302 (2004)—Ch. 4-C, §1.8.4; §9.2.2(1)(a) People v. Clotfelter, 65 Cal. App. 5th 30, 279 Cal. Rptr. 3d 487 (1st ......
  • Privileges and public policy exclusions
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...show that the communication was not intended to be kept in confidence, the communication is not privileged. People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 704, 744, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236. There is no spousal privilege when spouses have no reasonable expectation of privacy and the communication is ma......
  • Chapter 4 - §1. Overview
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 4 Statutory Limits on Particular Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard. See People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 817-18; People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 743; City of San Diego, 30 Cal.App.5th at 466; In re Clergy Cases (2d Dist.2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1224, 1240. Rulings on Pitchess motions, howev......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...§§20:20, 21:60, 21:130 Clergy Cases I, In re (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 1224, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 360, §10:100 Cleveland, People v. (2004) 32 Cal. 4th 704, 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 236, §§2:190, 7:60, 10:120 Cleveland, People v. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 466, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 313, §§3:50, 3:60, 22:100, 22:16......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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