People v. Farias
| Docket Number | C094195 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2023 |
| Citation | 92 Cal.App.5th 619,309 Cal.Rptr.3d 739 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jessie FARIAS et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
Robert L.S. Angres, Fresno, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jesse Farias.
Gillian Black, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Fernando Miranda.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christofferssen, Robert C. Nash, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This case is an example of why all parties to a legal proceeding should be reluctant to forego attending hearings at which the court is likely to announce a verdict. Here, defendant inmates, Jesse Farias and Fernando Miranda were found guilty of various charges stemming from their attack on a fellow inmate. Defendants, their counsel, and the People then agreed to allow the trial court to determine the truth of allegations that they had previously been convicted of crimes that constituted both serious felonies under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a), and strikes under Penal Code sections 667, subdivision (e)(2), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2), without their appearances. (Statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.)
In a detailed minute order issued following the trial court's consideration of these recidivist offender allegations, the trial court expressly found the prior convictions were for serious felonies under section 667, subdivision (a), but made no mention of the allegations under sections 667, subdivision (e)(2), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2). However, at the sentencing hearing, the court imposed sentences on the defendants as if it had found the strike allegations to be true. Had all parties attended the hearing on the priors, we have little doubt that someone in the group would have requested the court clearly make an oral record of its finding on the strike allegations and that the court would have obliged and found the allegations to be true. Instead, we have a record that is silent, with little way to know if the error was purely clerical in nature or if the trial court, in fact, failed to consider the strike allegations at all.
On appeal, both defendants take the position that the court could not impose a strike sentence here, because it made no strike finding. We agree that, as the record now stands, a strike sentence was not appropriate, and we vacate the sentence without prejudice as to the trial court's ability to correct the record if it can be clearly shown that the omission of strike findings was a clerical error and not a failure to make a finding and disposition on those allegations.
In addition to joining Farias's challenge to the strike sentence, Miranda also challenges the trial court's finding that two of his prior convictions were for serious felonies as contemplated by section 667, subdivision (a), on the basis that those findings are not supported by substantial evidence. While we affirm the trial court's finding on one of the two subject prior convictions, we agree with Miranda that, considering changes to the law governing gang offenses, the trial court lacked substantial evidence to support its finding that his prior conviction under section 186.22, subdivision (a), was for a serious felony as contemplated by section 667, subdivision (a).
Finally, both defendants argue that amendments to section 654 made after the trial court entered its sentence in this matter apply here, and we must remand the case to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under the amended law. We agree the amendment applies and that the trial court may apply the amended version of the law on remand.
Because the guilt findings in this action are not in dispute, we provide only a brief summary of the incident that gave rise to this action and the findings regarding that specific incident. We provide greater detail on allegations and the trial court's findings regarding prior convictions, which play a central role in defendants' appeals.
On May 7, 2018, a correctional officer working on the C Yard of the California State Prison, Sacramento witnessed inmates Farias and Miranda attack, beat, and stab a third inmate, J.G. The officer made a call on her radio for help and an announcement to "put the yard down."
Correctional officers formed a scrimmage line and ran towards the fight, and deployed pepper spray grenades. Miranda and Farias stopped their attack and were detained. Farias had blood on his clothing, but Miranda and Farias both appeared uninjured. One inmate-manufactured weapon was located on the grass near where officers detained Miranda. Another was located closer to where officers detained Farias.
J.G. was transported to a hospital. He suffered multiple serious injuries that required extensive treatment, including surgery.
In an Amended Information filed on April 23, 2021, which was further amended on May 4, 2021, the People alleged four counts. Counts one and four were alleged against both defendants. Count one alleged both defendants, with malice aforethought, attempted to murder J.G., in violation of section 664 and section 187, subdivision (a). Appended to count one were two enhancement allegations: first, that in committing the crime defendants inflicted great bodily injury on J.G. as contemplated by section 12022.7, subdivision (a); and, second that they used a dangerous weapon—"an inmate manufactured stabbing weapon"—in the commission of the offense as contemplated by section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). Count four alleged that defendants unlawfully possessed and carried an inmate manufactured weapon while incarcerated on the day of the alleged attack in violation of section 4502, subdivision (a).
Count two made allegations regarding Farias only. It alleged that Farias, with malice aforethought, assaulted J.G. with a deadly weapon and by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury while serving a life sentence in a California prison, in violation of section 4500. Count two, like count one, contained enhancement allegations under sections 12022.7, subdivision (a), and 12022, subdivision (b)(1).
Count three made allegations regarding Miranda only. It alleged that Miranda, while incarcerated, assaulted J.G. with a deadly weapon, an inmate manufactured stabbing instrument, in violation of section 4501, subdivision (a)(1). Count three contained an enhancement allegation under section 12022.7, subdivision (a).
A jury found the defendants guilty on all counts, and found all of the alleged enhancements appended to the counts to be true, with the exception of the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) () enhancement alleged with count two. The verdict form for count two did not include a space for the jury to reach a finding on the section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), enhancement, and when the clerk read the verdict it made no mention of this enhancement.
The information alleged Farias had two prior convictions. First, the information alleged that on March 4, 1996, Farias was convicted of murder in the first degree in violation of section 187 by the Superior Court for the County of Tulare. Second, the information alleged that on March 4, 1996, Farias was convicted of attempted murder in violation of sections 664 and 187 by the Superior Court for the County of Tulare.
The information also alleged Miranda had three prior convictions. First, the information alleged that on September 15, 2014, Miranda was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in violation of section 192, subdivision (a). Second, the information alleged that on September 15, 2014, Miranda was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and the infliction of great bodily injury in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1), and section 12022.7. Third, the information alleged that on August 11, 2009, Miranda was convicted of the crime of performing acts in furtherance a criminal street gang in violation of section 186.22, subdivision (a).
The information alleged all the defendants' prior alleged convictions were (1) for serious felonies within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a), which provides for a five-year sentence enhancement on certain subsequent convictions; and (2) eligible for a three-strikes life sentence within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (e)(2), and section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2).
In court, while the jury was deliberating the current charges, Farias and Miranda both waived jury trials on the prior convictions, their counsel concurred, and the People joined.
After the jury verdicts were read, the judge stated it would reconvene the next morning for the trial on the prior offenses.
The Assistant District Attorney stated that she and counsel for Farias had a preliminary hearing scheduled in another matter at the same time the judge intended to hold the trial on the priors. The court told the parties a trial takes precedence and to let the judge in the other department know, and then asked how much testimony the parties anticipated. The People stated they were willing to submit on the documents; so the court proposed meeting at 8:45 a.m., 15 minutes earlier than it had originally proposed meeting. However, counsel for Miranda said he had to be in court in Yolo County at some point the next day, and the court said it would move the hearing to 8:30 a.m.
The court then asked if defense counsel had seen the evidence the People had submitted regarding the priors. Farias's counsel said he had not, and proposed they conduct the trial on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial