People v. Mendoza
| Decision Date | 23 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. H012195,H012195 |
| Citation | 55 Cal.App.4th 257,63 Cal.Rptr.2d 905 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Previously published at 55 Cal.App.4th 257 55 Cal.App.4th 257, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3997 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose Luis MENDOZA, et al., Defendants and Appellants. In re Jose Luis MENDOZA, On Habeas Corpus. |
Eric S. Multhaup, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Francisco, for Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Mendoza.
William M. Robinson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Francisco, for Defendant-Appellant Juan Manuel Valdez.
Mark D. Greenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Oakland, for Defendant-Appellant Edgar Raul Valencia.
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen. of the State of California, George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald A. Bass, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Stan M. Helfman, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Sharon G. Birenbaum, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Defendants Jose Luis Mendoza, Edgar Paul Valencia and Juan Manuel Valdez were each convicted in a joint trial of one count of second degree murder, five counts of attempted murder and one count of shooting at an occupied building, and it was found true that all three defendants had been armed with a firearm (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and Valencia had personally used a firearm (Pen.Code, § 12022.5) in the commission of these offenses. On appeal, defendants Mendoza and Valdez assert that the rule that aiders and abettors are liable for any offenses which are the natural and probable consequences of the "target" offense violates due process. All three defendants assert that the trial court made numerous instructional, evidentiary and sentencing errors. In a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Mendoza seeks a referral for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective. We modify and affirm the judgment as to Valencia. Although I would reverse the judgment as to Valdez for retrial of the murder and attempted murder counts due to prejudicial instructional error, my colleagues find no prejudicial error and reverse and remand the judgment as to Valdez solely for resentencing. We reverse and remand the judgment as to Mendoza solely for resentencing. In addition, we issue an order to show cause directing the superior court to hold an evidentiary hearing on Mendoza's claim that his trial counsel was prejudicially ineffective.
On April 9, 1993, 22-year-old Mary Plell held a party at a rented warehouse in Watsonville. She invited her friends and their friends. She asked her twenty-four-year-old brother David Plell, a tall and large man who had previously served as a military policeman, to serve as the doorman for her party Earlier in the evening, defendants Mendoza and Valdez and their good friends Gabriel Gonzalez and Scott Smith had decided to obtain some beer, drive out into the hills and drink the beer. Smith was to be the "designated driver" and not drink. Because they were under age, they got someone else to purchase a case (24 cans) of beer for them. They went up into the hills and began drinking between 10 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. They drank all but three of the beers in about three hours. Valdez had eight to ten beers. As they drove back into town, they opened the last three beers. Then, Gonzalez noticed the party at the warehouse. They "decided to stop and check out the party."
to ensure that no one entered the party who was under the influence of alcohol. A $10 cover charge was collected at the door to help cover Mary's expenses. Chuck Christ and Kirk DeHaan, two older friends of Mary who were in their forties, came to the party to supply and set up the sound system. The party began at about 10 p.m., and more than a hundred people attended it. Most of the partygoers were under the age of 21. A few minutes after 1 a.m., law enforcement officers arrived at the warehouse in response to complaints about the noise. In compliance with their requests, Mary turned the music down somewhat though it remained loud.
Ten to twenty minutes after the music was turned down in response to the visit of the law enforcement officers, Mendoza, Valdez and Gonzalez approached the warehouse with beer cans in their hands. Smith stayed in the car. Mary did not know these defendants or Gonzalez. She noticed immediately that they were "very drunk" and "belligerent," and she indicated to her brother David that she did not want them admitted to the party. Mendoza, Valdez and Gonzalez approached David "standing shoulder to shoulder" and attempted to gain admittance to the party. David had a flashlight in his hand which he was using to check backpacks for alcohol. David noticed that Mendoza, Valdez and Gonzalez were intoxicated, and he asked them to step aside for a minute so that other people could be admitted to the party. A contentious verbal exchange followed which led to a physical confrontation between David and Gonzalez and Mendoza. David and Gonzalez struggled, and David struck Gonzalez at least once with the hand in which he held the flashlight. Then, David tossed or dropped the flashlight to the ground. Gonzalez sustained a head injury in this altercation which bled profusely. Mendoza was also injured. David, Mary and their friends asked Valdez, Mendoza and Gonzalez to leave.
Jerimiah McDonald picked up the flashlight that had fallen from David's hand. Gonzalez said "Somebody hit me with a flashlight." Valdez said in a "very angry and loud" manner: Valdez looked "mean," and he was challenging people to fight. He spoke "viciously" and clearly "wanted some revenge." Valdez seemed to believe that McDonald had used the flashlight to hit Gonzalez during the physical confrontation. Valdez challenged McDonald to fight. McDonald refused to fight him. Valdez threatened that He also threatened that "I'll be back with the gun to kill you motherfuckers." Mendoza and Gonzalez then said All three men declared that "We're brown and proud" and threatened that they would be back to kill "all of us white motherfuckers." The three men then got into a car and left. This entire incident had taken between five and ten minutes.
Valdez and Mendoza took Gonzalez to the hospital, about five minutes away from the warehouse, and left him there with Smith. On the way to the hospital, Gonzalez asked Valdez "[w]here were you when we were getting our ass kicked." Valdez and Mendoza were already mad, and this statement made Valdez even more mad because it indicated to Valdez that Gonzalez felt that Valdez had not been there to help him. Valdez insisted that he wanted to return to the warehouse and fight the "bouncer." Gonzalez arrived at the hospital at 1:36 a.m. His scalp laceration was treated and stitched up. It was not a serious injury.
Valdez told Mendoza to drive from the hospital to a house where defendant Valencia, one of Valdez's best friends, was staying. Valdez was still intoxicated. Valdez awakened Valencia and told him that they had gone to a party, and Gonzalez had been beaten with a flashlight and was in the hospital. Valdez told Valencia that he wanted to go back to the party and fight with "some people." Valencia responded immediately to Valdez's request for his assistance. Valdez told Valencia that they would need protection because "the people at the party were very big." Either Mendoza or Valdez suggested that they go to Valencia's mother's house to get "sticks" for their protection. Both Valdez and Mendoza were still mad. Mendoza drove them to Valencia's mother's house where Valencia and Valdez both obtained "sticks." Then they went to the warehouse.
Mary asked her brother to leave the party after Mendoza, Valdez and Gonzalez left because she was concerned about his safety. He did. She considered stopping the party, but instead she decided to lock all the doors and not let anyone else in. The doors were locked at 1:30 a.m. Some potential party-goers arrived after the doors were locked and banged on the warehouse's metal door for a few minutes to try to gain admittance. They did not kick the door too hard because the door seemed so thin that they were afraid of bending it. No one answered. Gonzalez's brother came to the warehouse looking for the person who had injured his brother. He too knocked on the door, but he was unable to attract any attention.
A few minutes later, Valdez, Mendoza and Valencia arrived at the warehouse. They could hear the music from the warehouse immediately. Each of them had a weapon in his hand. Valdez had a tire iron, Mendoza had a metal tool shaped like a cross, and Valencia had what appeared to be a wooden stick. 1 Both Valdez and Mendoza were visibly mad. Valdez and Mendoza went up to the large 16 feet by 10 feet metal rollup warehouse door and began banging on it with their metal weapons, kicking it, throwing their bodies against it and demanding to be let in. Valencia observed this. Valdez said Valdez challenged the occupants of the building to fight and said "We're going to kill you white fuckers" and "We're going to smash all your fucking cars." Valdez was very angry, violent and "obviously intoxicated." Mendoza also seemed angry, but more reserved. Valdez struck the door several more times, and he said "[w]e're going to come back and kill you all." Valencia generally stayed back by the street and made no threats. However, at some point, he too banged on the door. 2
Valdez continued to beat on the door with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mendoza, S058027
...Luis MENDOZA, et al., Appellants And Companion Case. No. S058027. Supreme Court of California. Aug. 31, 1997. Prior report: Cal.App., 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 905. Petition for review of appellant Juan Manuel Valdez is granted, with briefing and argument limited to the first issue presented in his pe......