People v. Greene
| Decision Date | 28 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | Super. Ct. No. SCD215231,D060081,D057657 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KOMOA GREENE, Defendant and Appellant. In re KOMOA GREENE on Habeas Corpus. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
CONSOLIDATED APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge, and petition for writ of habeas corpus. Judgment affirmed as modified and with directions; petition denied.
In this consolidated appeal and petition for writ of habeas corpus, Komoa Greene challenges her conviction of murder. Greene raises several claims of ineffective representation, including that the performance of both her pretrial counsel and her trial counsel was deficient based on the admission of evidence arising from two separatemeetings she had with the authorities during the investigative stage of the case. More specifically, she asserts that counsels' performance was deficient because (1) her pretrial counsel failed to obtain a use-immunity promise for incriminating statements she and her counsel made during an April 18, 2008 crime scene interview, and (2) her trial counsel failed to move to exclude incriminating evidence that was derived from statements she made during a June 29, 2007 meeting where she was given use immunity. We find no reversible error based on these claims.
Greene also argues the judgment must be reversed because in closing arguments the prosecutor misstated the intent element for culpability under an aiding and abetting theory. Again, we find no reversible error.
The Attorney General concedes two contentions of error pertaining to an improper ex post facto restitution fine and the abstract of judgment. We modify the judgment to remove the erroneous restitution fine, and instruct the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment. As so modified, we affirm the judgment and deny the habeas petition.1
The charges against Greene arose from the murder of Patricia Lopez, who was shot at about 10:20 p.m. on October 1, 1994, while she and a friend were being robbed as they walked home from a store. The prosecution's evidence showed that on the night ofthe shooting, Greene and several other individuals (including Khary Watson and Tyrone Katrel Lynch) were driving around looking for robbery victims. Greene was the driver, and she provided a gun for Watson and Lynch to use to threaten the victims. During the robbery, Watson shot Lopez while Greene was waiting in the car.
The murder remained unsolved for many years, until in 2006 the police received an anonymous phone call from a man (later identified as Greene's former boyfriend, Maurice McGuire) who stated that Greene and Lynch were involved. After the receipt of this anonymous call, the police contacted Greene and thereafter met with her on several occasions to discuss the crime. Greene's ineffective assistance claims pertain to two of these meetings: (1) a meeting on June 29, 2007, at which she was promised use immunity (the use-immunity meeting), and (2) a meeting on April 18, 2008, at which she was interviewed at the crime scene (the crime scene interview).
At Greene's trial, the evidence presented by the prosecution included incriminating testimony from Lynch (who had reached a plea agreement); the testimony of Dominic Holmes (a friend with whom Lynch discussed the crime); McGuire's testimony; and admissions made by Greene to an investigating agent during the recorded crime scene interview.
According to Lynch, on the night of the shooting, he, Greene, Watson, and another friend (Alfonzo Frazier) started talking about not having any money; Greene brought up the idea of snatching a purse or robbing someone; and they all agreed to do this. Greene had a .25-caliber gun with her and she gave it to either Lynch or Watson so they couldpoint it at the victim and make the robbery easier.2 They planned to split the proceeds of the robbery.
Lynch testified that they engaged in two robberies that night. During the first robbery, Greene drove them to the location, and Watson got out of the car by himself with the gun and approached a car in an alley. Lynch thought Watson was taking too long, so he got out of Greene's car, went to the alley, and told Watson to " 'come on.' " When Watson and Lynch got back in the car, Watson said he had gotten $6.00. They agreed it was not enough money, and decided to try again. Greene drove them to a street near El Cajon Boulevard, and Watson and Lynch got out of the car and started walking towards El Cajon Boulevard looking for a victim.
Lynch and Watson saw two women walking on the street. Watson grabbed one of the women (murder victim Lopez), and Lynch looked around to make sure they would not get caught. While Lynch was looking at a woman who was outside on her balcony, Lynch heard screaming and then heard a gunshot. When he turned around, Lynch saw Watson bent down in the grass.
Lynch and Watson ran to Greene's car. When they got in the car, Watson said he " 'got the shell casing,' " and Greene asked him " 'Why did you shoot?' " Watsonresponded, " 'The bitch bit me.' "3 Watson had retrieved a waist pouch from one of the victims, and he told the others there was "nothing in there." Greene did not believe it, and she also looked through the pouch and said there was nothing there.4
At the time, Lynch did not know whether Watson had actually shot someone, or whether he had just shot in the air or the ground. Greene drove them to Lynch's home and they went their separate ways. Lynch believed that by this point the gun had been returned to Greene. The next day Greene came to see Lynch; she was crying and she told him that she heard on the news that someone had been killed. She stated she wanted to send flowers to the family, but Lynch told her she should not do this because she was involved.
Lynch's friend (Holmes) testified that in 1994, Lynch told him that he, Greene, and Watson were "out stealing purses"; Greene was the driver; and during the robbery Watson shot someone. Holmes (who had met Greene through Lynch) testified that in 1994 Greene had shown him her .25-caliber gun, and he saw her put it in her purse.5
Greene's former boyfriend (McGuire) testified that when he was living with Greene in 1994, she would cry whenever a news report came on the television about the woman getting shot on El Cajon Boulevard. Greene told McGuire that she had been withLynch and another man; they were "going around . . . looking for people to rob"; she parked around the corner and waited in the car for them to come back; and she did not know a lady had been killed until later. Greene was upset because during the robbery "something went bad and it did not go the way it was supposed to." She told McGuire that "she gave them the gun and they did what they did." She showed McGuire the gun that was used in the shooting, and they later sold the gun to McGuire's friend.
During their investigation of the case, the authorities determined that four days before the October 1, 1994 shooting, Greene had retrieved from the police impound department a .25-caliber Lorcin pistol that was registered to her and that had been previously seized from her residence in an unrelated matter. A bullet recovered at the scene of the shooting was a .25-caliber bullet that could have been fired from a .25-caliber Lorcin pistol.
The incriminating statements underlying Green's ineffective representation claim were made during a recorded, voluntary interview at the crime scene on April 18, 2008. The individuals present during this interview were Greene, Greene's retained pretrial counsel, an agent from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) who was working with the San Diego police department on cold homicide cases, and a detective. Greene's pretrial counsel also made incriminating statements explaining Greene's version of the facts to the police; these statements were admitted at trial for consideration as adoptive admissions.
During the recorded interview, Greene stated that during the first robbery, Watson and Lynch got out of the car, and when they returned to the car they stated they did not"net anything."6 Greene told Watson and Lynch they were stupid and she was taking them home. However, as she was driving Watson yelled at her to let him out, and when he and Lynch got out of the car she assumed they were going to try to commit another robbery. While they were gone she heard a gunshot, and then they came running back to the car. In conversations between Watson and Lynch, Watson stated that he picked up the shell casing and the reason he shot the lady was because she bit him.
Greene claimed she did not know Watson and Lynch were armed. She stated she did not give them her gun and did not tell them to do anything, although she now recognized they probably took her gun from her apartment. She said that she thought they would commit the robbery without a weapon, for example by snatching a purse or demanding a wallet. She explained she did not like Watson because he did "stupid stuff," and she would have left Watson there after he got out of the car if Lynch had not gone with him.
After Greene heard about the shooting on the news and she told Lynch she wanted to send the family flowers, he told her that would be stupid because she would get everyone "caught up." Lynch returned the gun to her and she gave it to McGuire who then sold it.
Greene was tried on the theory that she aided and abetted a robbery, and that she was guilty of first degree murder under the felony-murder rule. The jury convicted...
To continue reading
Request your trial