People v. Crew
| Decision Date | 27 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | E079288 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARRION LEE CREW, JR., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF139980 Louis R. Hanoian, Judge. ) Affirmed.
Arrion Crew, in pro. per., and Waldemar D. Halka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Arrion Lee Crew Jr., filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95,[1] which the court denied. After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal on behalf of defendant, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.
Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for potential error.
We offered defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has done. Defendant contends defense counsel should have called expert witnesses to testify at his trial on razor blades, linen suits, what constitutes a threat to human life, whether a shooter intends to kill, and the effects of alcohol on witnesses. He maintains his attorney was not prepared to handle a double murder case, did not properly advise him about his right to testify, did not properly investigate the case, and did not properly prepare defense witnesses to testify. He requests we evaluate the testimony of one witness, whom he maintains informed the police, prior to the trial, that defendant acted in self-defense but, at trial, testified otherwise. We affirm.
On October 22, 2007, defendant went to the victims' home to sell them drugs. (Crew, supra, E053522.) There was a dispute over money; victim 1 alleged defendant owed her "change." (Ibid.) Victim 1 had been drinking all day; the occupants of the home had been partying, using drugs and alcohol. (Ibid.)
Defendant left without giving victim 1 her "change." (Crew, supra, E053522.) Over the ensuing hours, victim 1 repeatedly called defendant and threatened him. (Ibid.) She became "very agitated about the $20 defendant owed her." (Ibid.) She continued drinking, becoming intoxicated. (Ibid.)
At 4:00 a.m., one of the occupants of the home was awakened by voices outside; defendant walked away from victim 1 while she was talking to him. (Crew, supra, E053522.) Victim 1 grabbed defendant by the shoulder; he "shrugged her off and said, 'Bitch, get the fuck off me.'" (Ibid.) Defendant left the home again. (Ibid.)
Defendant returned to the home saying he had come to pay victim 1 her money. (Crew, supra, E053522.) Defendant entered the home where victim 1 repeatedly demanded her money; she repeatedly charged at defendant, requiring that one of the other occupants of the home intersperse himself between them. (Ibid.) Defendant backed away; victim 1 lunged toward him again, reaching toward him with her right hand. Her hand was open, but she had something in her left hand. As she reached toward defendant, defendant pulled two guns out of his pockets and shot her "'point blank.'" One witness "heard about eight gunshots." (Ibid.)
Defendant then approached the other victim and asked her how she could let victim 1 speak so disrespectfully to him. (Crew, supra, E053522.) One of the other occupants of the home heard eight more gunshots. (Ibid.) Paramedics arrived and declared both victims dead. (Ibid.)
Victim 1 had two gunshot wounds: a fatal wound to her chest and an abdominal wound. The bullets entered from the front of her body. The trajectories were consistent with victim 1 leaning forward when she was shot. (Crew, supra, E053522.) The other victim sustained a gunshot wound to her head, fired at close range; she had another gunshot wound to her thigh. (Ibid.) Both women died with a blood-alcohol level of 0.22 and cocaine in their systems. (Ibid.)
Three, .45-caliber bullet casings were found near victim 1's body. All three were fired from the same gun. A pair of scissors was found close to her right hand. A carpet knife or box cutter, in an open position, was found in or near her left hand. (Crew, supra, E053522.)
The next day, defendant's apartment manager found the door to defendant's apartment open; the apartment was in disarray. He saw bullets on the floor and .45-caliber bullets on a table. (Crew, supra, E053522.) The manager found a magazine that contained nine Winchester .45-caliber rounds near the apartment's dumpster. (Ibid.) He called the police and gave them the magazine. (Ibid.) The rounds in the magazine matched the casings found in the victims' home. (Ibid.)
The People charged defendant with two counts of first degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), counts 1 &2) and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 3). The information alleged personal discharge of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) as to both murder counts, and alleged a special circumstance of multiple murder as to count 2 (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). (Crew, supra, E053522.)
Defendant did not testify at trial. (Crew, supra, E053522.) Defendant relied on self-defense or, alternatively, on imperfect self-defense as to the murder of victim 1. (Ibid.) The court gave the standard instruction, CALCRIM No. 505, on self-defense. (Ibid.) The court further instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 3472, which provides: "A person does not have the right to self-defense if he provokes a fight or quarrel with the intent to create an excuse to use force." The court also instructed the jury on imperfect self-defense, with a modified version of CALCRIM No. 571. (Crew, supra, E053522.)
The jury convicted defendant on all three counts and further found the special circumstance allegation and the firearm allegations true. (Crew, supra, E053522.) The court imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for the multiple murder special circumstance; separate, consecutive terms of 25 years to life for each of the two murder convictions; consecutive terms of 25 years to life on each of the firearm enhancements; and a concurrent term of three years on the count 3 offense. (Ibid.)
Defendant appealed, contending, in pertinent part, that the court erred in its instructions on self-defense, erred in its omission of an instruction on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter, and that defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. (Crew, supra, E053522.) This court affirmed the judgment but modified the sentence. (Ibid.)
On May 6, 2022, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95. At a hearing on June 24, 2022, the People informed the court that Defense counsel responded, "I will represent that everything the DA just said is true, so I submit." The court denied the petition.
Defendant contends defense counsel should have called expert witnesses to testify at his trial on razor blades, linen suits, what constitutes a threat to human life, whether a shooter intends to kill, and the effects of alcohol on witnesses. He maintains his attorney was not prepared to handle a double murder case, did not properly advise him about his right to testify, did not properly investigate the case, and did not properly prepare defense witnesses to testify. He requests we evaluate the testimony of one witness, whom he maintains informed the police, prior to the trial, that defendant acted in self-defense, but at trial testified otherwise.
All defendant's contentions are direct attacks on the judgment. However, defendant's appeal is from the denial of a postjudgment motion, not the judgment. Defendant has forfeited all his complaints by not raising them in his appeal from the judgment. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [].)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
The order denying defendant's petition is affirmed.
J., FIELDS J.
--------...
To continue reading
Request your trial