People v. Gentile
| Decision Date | 27 February 2017 |
| Docket Number | E064822 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH ROBERT GENTILE, JR., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The petition for rehearing is denied. The disposition, at page 14 of the opinion filed on February 27, 2017, is modified as follows:
The conviction for first degree murder is reversed. The matter is remanded for the People to decide whether to accept reduction of count 1 to second degree murder, or to retry defendant for the first degree murder under theories other than natural and probable consequences.
Except for these modifications, the opinion remains unchanged. This modification changes the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Graham A. Cribbs, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Barry Carlton and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, Joseph Robert Gentile, was charged with first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)), in connection with the beating death of Guillermo Saavedra, by means of using a golf club, wooden chair, and a beer bottle. The prosecution's main witness was granted use immunity, but, depending on which statements the jury believed, may have actively participated in the beating using those implements. The jury convicted defendant of the murder, but found untrue an allegation that he used a deadly or dangerous weapon. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life, and the prosecution dismissed an allegation that he had a prior conviction for which he had served a prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Defendant appealed.
On appeal, defendant argues for reversal claiming (1) the court erroneously instructed the jury it could convict him of first degree murder under the doctrine of natural and probable consequences; (2) the court failed to instruct the jury it could convict of second degree murder based on failure to rescue the victim; (3) the court failed to instruct on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser offense; (4) the court failed to instruct on involuntary manslaughter based on failure to perform a legal duty; (5) the jury's receipt of a verdict form for a finding as to his prior conviction allegation interfered with defendant's due process rights; (6) the cumulative effect of the errors was prejudicial; and (7) the amount imposed for the court operations and facilities assessments was incorrect.We reverse the conviction for first degree murder based on the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155.
The undisputed facts show that prior to June 21, 2014, Guillermo Saavedra lived in the back of the La Casita restaurant in Indio, acting as property caretaker and handyman. On June 23, 2014, the owner of the property and his son happened to drive past the restaurant and noticed the lights were on, which seemed unusual. They entered the restaurant when Saavedra did not respond and found Saavedra laying on the floor, dead. Outside, in the parking lot, they found Saavedra's cell phone. The police were contacted.
When they arrived at the restaurant, the police found the victim's body, along with a broken chair, a golf club, a wooden stick with blood, and a broken bottle near the body. The victim's cell phone was found in the grass just north of the building. Investigators documented three sets of bloody footprints, at least one of which was a shoeprint, and one of which appeared to have been made by a sock or bare foot. Detectives also collected surveillance videos from the Royal Plaza Inn and from the nearby laundromat. The police obtained and executed various search warrants after viewing evidence on the surveillance tapes of the nearby Royal Plaza hotel and the laundromat. After reviewing those surveillance videos, police officers visited the areas and found a sock on a bush atthe property located between the hotel and the laundromat. The sock appeared to have a reddish-brown substance on it.
Also undisputed are certain movements by defendant and his estranged wife, Saundra Roberts, captured on the surveillance videos. At 1:03 a.m. on June 22, 2014, the defendant approached the night entrance of the Royal Plaza Hotel in Indio and pressed the buzzer. Defendant then went to the door of the hotel manager's apartment, seeking to rent a room. He appeared intoxicated, so the manager declined to rent him a room, although defendant and Roberts were regular tenants, renting a room from her two or three times per month.
The hotel manager also managed the coin-operated laundry located near the hotel. Surveillance video from that location showed Roberts talking with her on-again-off-again boyfriend, Stephen Gardner. Gardner had been contacted by Roberts, who asked him to bring a pair of shorts, a shirt and socks to the laundromat. Roberts sounded panicked, so Gardner thought she was in trouble. He took the clothes to the laundromat where he found Roberts with defendant, which made him angry. The defendant appeared to be wet, and his hands were red.
The victim suffered multiple fractures of his ribs, collarbone, and parts of the spinal structure, as well as lung hemorrhage. The injuries would have required significant blunt force. From the nature of the injuries, the pathologist opined that multiple blunt impact injuries caused the death. The pathologist also noted that the victim had coronary disease that may have led to heart failure, as a result of the beating.The injuries to Saavedra were probably inflicted with fists, a golf club, a beer bottle, and a chair. The pathologist described the cause of death as a heart attack caused by multiple blunt force injuries.
DNA testing of the blood on the sock and the head of the broken golf club matched the victim, Saavedra. There was also DNA that was consistent with defendant's profile as a minor contributor on the sock, as well another person's DNA, which the analyst could not identify due to the complex nature of the mixture. A cigarette butt recovered at the scene contained a mixture of Roberts' and Saavedra's DNA. A second cigarette butt had only one DNA profile, belonging to Saavedra, while a third butt had defendant's DNA on it. Swabs from the golf club head were analyzed and found to contain a mixture of two persons' DNA, but the profile belonging to Saavedra was the only one that could be identified. The swab from the golf club grip had DNA from three people.
Roberts gave various accounts of the events. At trial, she testified that she called defendant for help moving from Stephen Gardner's residence on Friday, June 21, 2014, so defendant sent a young man with a truck to move her belongings. She was moving her belongings to the restaurant at which Saavedra, her dear friend, worked security and lived. The restaurant was her "safe house" when she was "at odds" with Gardner. Roberts wanted to introduce defendant to Saavedra because Saavedra wanted to meet defendant. Saavedra wanted to meet defendant because they both had backgroundsserving in the Marines. Later, Edward Cordero, one of defendant's house mates, dropped defendant off at the restaurant.
At the restaurant, the three people drank many beers and martinis throughout the evening. At one point, Roberts went out to purchase more alcohol, and when she returned, the defendant and Saavedra were still in conversation. At some point, the two men raised their voices at each other, but they did not fight. Eventually, Roberts felt both drunk and like a third wheel, so she left the two men and went to her homeless camp to sleep it off. When she left, there had not been any fighting.
In this version, Roberts indicated that she awoke at around 1:00 or 1:30 a.m., and went to a nearby AM/PM store to buy cigarettes; when she came out she saw defendant across the street at the Royal Plaza Inn hotel. She saw him walk through the parking lot and was curious why he had not gone home. Defendant told her he was trying to get a room at the hotel but was unsuccessful. Defendant was dressed in the same clothes he had worn earlier but his clothes appeared wet.
For this reason, Roberts contacted Gardner and asked him to bring her some clothes at the laundromat. Gardner was unaware that Roberts wanted the clothing for defendant, so he was surprised and angry to see defendant at the laundromat when he showed up with the items. Gardner brought a pair of shorts, a tie-dyed tee shirt, and a single sock.2 Later, Roberts went to Gardner's place but he ran her off because he wasangry. She went back to her homeless camp to sleep and that was the last she saw of defendant or Gardner.
Prior to trial, Roberts gave three other and different statements during interviews with police. In the first pretrial statement, Roberts testified she was living at the restaurant where Saavedra worked, although her relationship with the victim was purely platonic. She did not mention defendant sending a young man with a truck to move her to the restaurant. On Saturday, the defendant called her and wanted to meet with her and get a room with her, although she said it had been 16 months since she had been with defendant.3 In this version, Roberts indicated she went to...
To continue reading
Request your trial