People v. I.A. (In re I.A.)
| Decision Date | 04 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2d Juv. No. B296549 |
| Citation | 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 234,48 Cal.App.5th 767 |
| Parties | IN RE I.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. I.A., Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
If a juvenile court finds true an allegation that a minor committed murder based on the natural and probable consequences theory, the minor may petition the court to vacate its finding and the corresponding disposition pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 1170.95. ( In re R.G. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 141, 151, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 24.) If the court grants the petition, and the original charging document included only a generic murder allegation without alleging the target offense, the now-vacated finding on the murder allegation "shall be redesignated" as a finding on the target offense. ( § 1170.95, subd. (e).)
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the minor may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the redesignated target offense. We hold that where a juvenile court vacates its true finding on a generic murder allegation and redesignates it as a finding on an uncharged target offense, and does so before a minor has had the opportunity to contest the court’s findings or orders, the minor may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence of the redesignated offense on appeal.
I.A. appeals from the juvenile court’s order declaring him a ward of the court after it sustained allegations that he possessed a concealable firearm (§ 29610) and committed vandalism (§ 594). He contends there was insufficient evidence he committed these crimes. We agree, and reverse.
The murder of E.L.
I.A. and five of his friends—Aviyance Burke, Semaj Cathey, R.G., Donovan Kushner, and Dreshad Populus—were members of a Los Angeles criminal street gang. In June 2017, the six were driving through rival gang territory. I.A., Burke, and Populus were in a Chevrolet; Cathey, R.G., and Kushner were in an Infiniti directly ahead of them. The Infiniti stopped, and Kushner got out and shot a man crossing the street. The man, later identified as E.L., died at the scene.
Investigators found five spent cartridge casings and a bullet fragment near E.L.’s body, all of which had been fired from the same nine-millimeter handgun. Police later searched Cathey’s house and found a nine-millimeter handgun. They also found several cartridges and cartridge casings with the same head stamp as the cartridges found at the crime scene. I.A.’s fingerprints and DNA were not on the gun or on any of the cartridges or cartridge casings.
Prosecutors alleged that I.A. committed murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and conspired to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)) in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition. They also alleged that I.A. committed his crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), and that a principal personally used a firearm, personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death during the commission of the crimes (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d) & (e)(1)). They filed similar charges against I.A.’s alleged accomplices.
Jailhouse conversations
While awaiting trial on the charges, Cathey was put in a cell with an undercover informant. Cathey told the informant that I.A. was "one of the homies." When the informant said that police had arrested I.A., Cathey "wonder[ed] what they got him for." He said that he did not know why police would arrest or even want to talk to I.A. since they had found the gun used to shoot E.L. at Cathey’s house.
Police later put Kushner in a cell with the informant. Kushner admitted that he was in the Infiniti with Cathey and R.G. on the day of E.L.’s murder. "We was tagging at first and shit," he said, "and then we end up ... seein’ somebody." Thinking the person was a rival gang member, Kushner got out of the Infiniti and used a nine-millimeter handgun to shoot him. After the shooting Kushner gave the gun to Cathey. Kushner did not mention that I.A. or anyone else in the Chevrolet was involved in E.L.’s murder.
I.A. and R.G. were housed together in another cell. During one conversation police recorded, R.G. said that he "just told [police] that we was taggin’ ...." I.A. asked, "They already know that?" R.G. replied that they did. I.A. then asked if R.G. told police that I.A. had been tagging. R.G. said, "They know you was there, bro."
In another recorded conversation, R.G. told I.A. that police "said they gon’ get our fingerprint, everybody fingerprints, they say they gon’ fingerprint that gun." But I.A. had nothing to worry about because "[he] ain’t touch that gun—" I.A. disagreed:
Facebook photograph and messages
At the contested adjudication, prosecutors introduced into evidence a picture of I.A. holding what appears to be an assault rifle. They also introduced several Facebook messages he sent or received in the months surrounding E.L.’s murder. In January 2017, for example, I.A. wrote, "I’m tryin to get me a gun." A few days later he wrote, "Why would I get a 38 nigga got that all ready[?]" and "UK no some body that sale a thang[?]"
In February, I.A. sent a message to Cathey: "I got to go home NK get my thang." Cathey responded, I.A. replied, "Yea 38."
The following week, Cathey sent I.A. a message asking, "Who got another one for the low[?]" I.A. replied, "They don’t got nun for the low." Cathey asked, "How u pay for urs[?]" I.A. said, "300 but that because I was trying to get my shit to fast."
In April, I.A. sent a message to "Nifty Bkang" that said, "Uk got a thAng 4k sale[?]" Later that month he told Bkang, "We need some thangs." Bkang responded, "UK got yo 38k." I.A. replied, "Mank that its."
A few days after E.L.’s murder in June, Cathey told I.A. that a person named "T.K." was "trippin out" because Kushner used T.K.’s handgun to shoot E.L. T.K. wanted Kushner and his accomplices to purchase the gun.
Later that day I.A. sent a message to "Laura Lenay." The message read, "Sis my gun at yo Moma." Lenay asked, "That’s the one he be having right?" I.A. replied, "Yea." Lenay said,
Juvenile court findings and subsequent proceedings
At the conclusion of adjudicatory proceedings in October 2018, the juvenile court sustained the allegation that I.A. committed murder, and deemed the murder to be second degree . I.A.’s counsel asked the court for clarification: "So you sustained the petition under a natural and probable consequences theory with the targeted [offenses] you mentioned, the tagging ... and transfer of gun[,] and [you found that] there’s insufficient evidence ... under the first degree murder theory; is that correct?" The court said that it was. It then found true the gang and firearm allegations attached to the murder, but found not true the allegation that I.A. conspired to commit murder.
At the January 2019 disposition hearing, I.A. moved for a new adjudication pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1437 (S.B. 1437), which amended "the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who [was] not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) The juvenile court denied I.A.’s motion, concluding that he had to file a section 1170.95 petition if he wanted the true finding on the murder allegation set aside. ( In re R.G. , supra , 35 Cal.App.5th at pp. 145-151, 247 Cal.Rptr.3d 24.) It declared him a ward of the court, and ordered him committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for a maximum term of 40 years to life.
I.A. filed the requisite petition, and the juvenile court determined that he made a prima facie showing he was entitled to relief. Over prosecutors’ objections, the court granted I.A.’s petition the following month. Prosecutors then urged the court to redesignate its true finding on the murder allegation as findings that I.A. possessed a concealable firearm (based on the theory that he constructively possessed the gun Kushner used to shoot E.L.) and committed vandalism, and that he committed those crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang. I.A. argued the evidence did not support these allegations, but the court disagreed. It made the requested redesignations, deemed the offenses felonies, and declared I.A. a ward of the court. It ordered a camp community placement for six years eight months.
I.A.’s contentions are cognizable on appeal
Before we turn to I.A.’s insufficiency-of-the-evidence contentions, we first consider the Attorney General’s arguments that they are not cognizable on appeal. The Attorney General argues: (1) the doctrine of invited error prevents consideration of I.A.’s contentions, (2) I.A. forfeited his contentions because he did not object to the court’s redesignation of its murder finding, and (3) permitting I.A. to raise his contentions on appeal conflicts with the legislative intent underlying section 1170.95. None of these arguments is persuasive.
" ‘The doctrine of invited error is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the ... court at [their] behest.’ " ( People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30.) The Attorney General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. J.W. (In re J.W.)
...status as a minor is certainly an element of being a minor in possession of a firearm ( Pen. Code, § 29610 ); ( In re I.A. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 767, 778, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 ). Consequently, the validity of the juvenile court's order sustaining the allegations against minor turns on whethe......
-
People v. Howard
...established at trial when designating the underlying felony pursuant to section 1170.95, subdivision (e). ( In re I.A. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 767, 775, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 234 [examining evidence offered at contested adjudication to determine whether the juvenile court's section 1170.95 subdivis......
- People v. Silva
- People v. Finch
-
Table of Cases null
...§3.3.2(2)(b)[1] Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92, 136 S. Ct. 616, 193 L. Ed. 2d 504 (2016)—Ch. 8, §1.1.1(1)(b)[1]; §1.1.3I I.A., In re, 48 Cal. App. 5th 767, 262 Cal. Rptr. 3d 234 (2d Dist. 2020)—Ch. 3-B, §5.4.1 IAR Systems Software, Inc. v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. App. 5th 503, 218 Cal. Rptr.......
-
Chapter 3 - §5. Exception—Party's own admission
...out-of-court statements. People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 381; Alvarez, 27 Cal.4th at 1169; see also In re I.A (2d Dist.2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 767, 779 (corpus delicti must also be established independently and without considering extrajudicial statements of accomplices). This is kno......