People v. Meraz

Decision Date27 December 2018
Docket NumberB245657
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Juan Ramon MERAZ et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Certified for Partial Publication.*

Jennifer A. Mannix, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Juan Ramon Meraz.

Derek K. Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Juan M. Chambasis.

Robert E. Boyce, San Diego, CA, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Victor Bibiano.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Joseph P. Lee, Shawn McGahey Webb and Jonathan J. Kline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BIGELOW, P. J.

Codefendants Juan Ramon Meraz, Juan M. Chambasis, and Victor Bibiano separately appeal their convictions and sentences for murder, attempted murder, and discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling following a gang-related shooting that killed two victims and seriously injured a third. This is our third opinion in this case. In our first opinion, we affirmed the judgments with certain corrections to their sentences. The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case to us for reconsideration of defendants’ confrontation clause challenges to the gang expert’s testimony in light of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102, 374 P.3d 320 ( Sanchez ). In a partially published opinion, we again affirmed the judgments as modified. ( People v. Meraz (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1162, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 81.)

Appellants once again sought review. The California Supreme Court denied Chambasis’s petition, but granted Meraz’s and Bibiano’s petitions and held the cases pending disposition in two other cases raising issues related to sentencing juveniles to life without parole. The court specifically ordered that our prior opinion remain precedential. ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(3).) The court transferred the matter to us to determine if Meraz and Bibiano’s sentencing challenges were rendered moot by Senate Bill No. 394, effective January 1, 2018. If not, the court directed us to reconsider the matter in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 718, 732–735, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 ( Montgomery ). In supplemental briefing after transfer, appellants raise additional issues based on several newly enacted laws.

Our reconsideration of this case does not affect the portions of our prior opinion affirming appellants’ convictions. We reissue those parts of our opinion without change and, for clarity, we republish the previously published part of our prior opinion. In the unpublished part of this opinion, we reject Meraz’s and Bibiano’s Eighth Amendment challenges to their sentences as moot but conditionally reverse and remand their judgments for transfer hearings pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. Presuming Meraz’s and Bibiano’s cases are transferred to adult criminal court, they are entitled to resentencing hearings to make a record of factors potentially relevant to their future youth offender parole hearings. Moreover, all three appellants are entitled to remand for the trial court to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike firearm enhancements. Finally, we will correct several other aspects of their sentences.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellants were jointly charged with the murders of Javier Zamora and Justin Curiel ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ; counts 1 & 2),1 the attempted premeditated murder of Jose Santa Ana ( §§ 187, subd. (a), 664 ; count 3), and discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246; count 4). For the murder counts, multiple-murder and gang-murder special circumstances were alleged. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (22).) A variety of firearm and gang enhancements were also alleged.2 A first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury deadlocked. On retrial, the jury found appellants guilty on all counts and found all special circumstances and enhancements true. At separate sentencing hearings, the trial court sentenced each appellant to life without the possibility of parole, a consecutive life sentence, and an additional 50 years to life in state prison as follows: life without the possibility of parole for count 1, plus 25 years to life pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d); and a consecutive life sentence on count 3, plus 25 years to life pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The court imposed concurrent sentences on counts 2 and 4 and stayed the remaining enhancements for counts 1 and 3.3 The court imposed various fines, fees, and custody credits discussed further, post , as necessary. Appellants separately appealed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The shooting in this case was part of a long-standing rivalry between two gangs in Pacoima: Pacoima Terra Bella (Terra Bella) and the Pacoima Project Boys (Project Boys). The rivalry reached a heated point on May 5, 2008, when Project Boys member Jose Avila shot and killed Terra Bella member Alejandro Villa. Avila was convicted of the murder. The shooting by appellants here—all Terra Bella members—was viewed as retaliation for Villa’s murder.

On September 20, 2009, the day of the shooting, 16-year-old Project Boys member Santa Ana lived at the San Fernando Gardens housing project, which was in Project Boys gang territory. Santa Ana and fellow Project Boys member Zamora were on the porch of Rosemary Hurtado’s apartment when Curiel joined them. Curiel was not a gang member and had just moved into San Fernando Gardens. About five minutes after Curiel arrived, three males approached, carrying firearms. Santa Ana recognized them and identified them at trial as Bibiano, also known as "Blacky"; Meraz, also known as "Curley"; and Chambasis, also known as "Bash." Bibiano asked the trio where they were from, which Santa Ana knew was gang parlance asking which gang they were from. Curiel tried to say he "wasn’t from anywhere." One of the appellants said they were from Terra Bella. Meraz told a group of young children playing nearby, including Curiel’s brother, to leave. When the children left, appellants began shooting.

Before the shooting, 12-year-old S.B. was playing near the porch where the shooting took place. She noticed three males approaching the victims on the porch. One of the approaching males had a gun in his hand, and S.B. identified him at trial as Chambasis. As the shooting began, she grabbed her younger brother and carried him inside her house.

Zamora was shot seven times, three of which were fatal. Curiel was shot four times, two of which were fatal. Santa Ana was shot five times, and although he survived, he acted like he was dead. After appellants fled back the way they had come, Santa Ana saw his friends were dead, so he tried to walk toward a nearby fire station but collapsed on the way.

Hurtado heard the gunshots, emerged from her apartment to investigate, and saw Santa Ana and the other two victims. As she checked on her children, Santa Ana walked away. When she found him heading toward the fire station, he repeatedly told her "Terra Bella" shot him.

Several Los Angeles police officers arrived at the scene. One officer approached Santa Ana and said to him, "You’re going to die. Who shot you? What happened?" Santa Ana responded, "Blacky from Terra Bella Street," i.e., Bibiano, shot him. He told another officer "Blacky" had tattoos of a "1" and a "3" on his forearms.4 At the hospital, Santa Ana was shown a series of photographs and he identified all three appellants as the shooters.

Thirteen shell casings, eight bullets, and two partial bullets were recovered from the scene. A ballistics expert linked one of the casings to a gun used by Timothy Jenkins in a shooting eight days earlier. Jenkins was a member of the Pacoima Pirus gang, which had a friendly relationship with Terra Bella. He told police he traded the gun to Chambasis for marijuana on the day before the shooting at San Fernando Gardens.

All three appellants were arrested the day after the shooting. When officers contacted Meraz, he briefly attempted to flee but was apprehended. Officers recovered a cell phone and a belt buckle with the letter "T" on it. Chambasis and Bibiano were arrested when officers stopped the car they were riding in together. Bibiano gave officers a false name. A search of Chambasis’s residence yielded two Pittsburgh Pirates baseball caps with "RIP, Bones" and "TBST" written on them, a rifle, a shotgun, and other items with his name on them.

While in custody, Bibiano and Meraz were placed in a cell together and their conversation was secretly recorded. Bibiano said he was going to "do life." He said officers got him in "Bash’s car" about an hour before. He claimed he did not know anything because he "was not even there." Meraz also claimed he "wasn’t even there" and said he did not know Bash. Bibiano responded, "Me neither." Bibiano said, "The rest of my life has gone to waste," to which Meraz responded, "All because of some stupid shit." Bibiano said Bash had told him, "Don’t trip, dude," and Bibiano had responded, "I’m no fuckin’ rat, man." Meraz commented, "If you rat, foo’, they’ll make paperwork on you," and "when you get to the big house, they fuck you up, foo’. Don’t say anything." Bibiano said, "Yeah, I know. It doesn’t matter ain’t gonna happen. I don’t even got nothing. Shit, I was not even there, man. What the fuck I’m gonna tell you?" Meraz claimed all the police had was "a bunch of gossip." Meraz said, "What saved me foo’, is that they asked me what I was doing. And I told him that—that I was with Paula. And they called her and she said yes." Bibiano responded, "Hopefully my girl will also say yes." They talked about serving life in prison and Meraz said he had "lost everything ... [a]ll because of one thing." Bibiano said, "We’ll never get out, dude. Never."...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • People v. Thompkins
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 2020
    ...Cal.Rptr.3d 19 ; People v. Meraz (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1162, 1174-1175, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 81 ( Meraz I ); People v. Meraz (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 768, 781-782, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ( Meraz II ), review granted Mar. 27, 2019, S253629 [grant and hold for People v. Perez , S248730].)ii. Predicate Offe......
  • People v. Valencia
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 1, 2021
    ...reached a contrary conclusion: People v. Bermudez, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at page 363, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 689 ; People v. Meraz (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 768, 781–782, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ; People v. Blessett, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at pages 944–945, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 164 ; People v. Vega-Robles, supra,......
  • People v. Bermudez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2020
    ...the expert’s area of expertise. ( Id . at p. 698, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102, 374 P.3d 320, italics added.) As recognized in People v. Meraz (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 768 ( Meraz II ), review granted March 27, 2019, S253629, Sanchez’s reference to general background testimony "plainly includes the gen......
  • People v. Bermudez, C079168, C079169
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 2019
    ...expert's area of expertise. ( Id. at p. 698, 204 Cal.Rptr.3d 102, 374 P.3d 320, italics added.) As recognized in People v. Meraz (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 768, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ( Meraz II ), review granted March 27, 2019, S253629, Sanchez's reference to general background testimony "plainly in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Right of confrontation & out-of-court statements
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147, 168; People v. Thompkins (1st Dist.2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 365, 406; People v. Meraz (2d Dist.2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 768, 777, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818. This involves determining whether (1) the statement is test......
  • Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 2 Foundation
    • Invalid date
    ...(1st Dist.2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 382, 410-11; People v. Meraz (2d Dist.2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1162, 1174-75; People v. Meraz (2d Dist.2018) 30 Cal. App.5th 768, 781-82. Other courts of appeal have determined that specific testimony by a gang expert about predicate offenses by gang members is case......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§5.1.3(3)(b) People v. Meneses, 41 Cal. App. 5th 63, 253 Cal. Rptr. 3d 859 (4th Dist. 2019)—Ch. 4-A, §3.4.1(2)(b) People v. Meraz, 30 Cal. App. 5th 768, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2d Dist. 2018)—Ch. 2, §11.2.2(1)(b)[2][a]; §11.2.5(2); Ch. 5-E, §3; §3.2.1(3)(d)[2][b] People v. Meraz, 6 Cal. App. 5......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT