People v. Navarra

• Decision Date: 01 November 2018
• Docket Number: F071142
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRITTANY NAVARRA, Defendant and Appellant.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BRITTANY NAVARRA, Defendant and Appellant.

F071142

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

November 1, 2018

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. MCR030669A)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County, transferred for trial to Superior Court of Stanislaus County (case No. 1429372). Marie Sovey Silveira and James E. Oakley, Judges.

Audrey R. Chavez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Lewis A. Martinez, Tia Coronado and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION

Brittany Navarra (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree murder (Pen. Code,¹ § 187, subd. (a); count 1), first degree burglary (§ 459; count 2), and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); count 3). The jury further found true a lying-in-wait special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)) with respect to count 1. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and ordered to pay various fees, fines, and assessments.²

This is the third time this case has been before us. In our original opinion, we found no prejudicial error and affirmed, rejecting defendant's claims (1) she was denied various constitutional rights by the admission of Gran's convictions; (2) she was denied various constitutional rights by the admission of Gran's statement to a psychologist who interviewed Gran in conjunction with Gran's plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI); (3) the jury instructions allowed jurors to find defendant guilty of first degree murder based on Gran's mental state rather than her own; (4) there was insufficient evidence to support first degree murder by lying in wait and the lying-in-wait special circumstance; (5) imposition of an LWOP sentence violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Defendant petitioned for rehearing, arguing, among other things, that Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57), required that she be afforded a conditional reversal of the judgment and remand for a fitness/transfer hearing in juvenile court. We granted rehearing and concluded Proposition 57 did not apply retroactively to defendant's case. In so holding, we rejected defendant's claim retroactivity to juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences was requiredunder Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 577 U.S. ___, ___ (Montgomery). We otherwise adhered to our original analysis, again found no prejudicial error, and affirmed.

The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the case in light of People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 (Lara).³ We have done so, and conclude defendant is entitled to a conditional reversal and remand for a juvenile fitness/transfer hearing. We also find moot defendant's argument that imposition of an LWOP sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, but, if defendant's case remains in a court of criminal (adult) jurisdiction, she is entitled to a limited hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) and People v. Rodriguez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1123 (Rodriguez). We adhere to our original analysis concerning defendant's remaining claims.

FACTS

IPROSECUTION EVIDENCE

As of January 14, 2008, Thomas Hollier resided on Winter Way, in Madera. Also living in the house were Krista Pike, Thomas's fiancée, and Lynn Hollier, his father.⁴ Thomas and Pike had known each other for about four years. They had dated for about two years, then Pike and her family moved away and the couple broke up. When Pike returned to Madera in December 2007, they "picked up right were [they] left off" and started talking about marriage. Pike moved into the Hollier residence around January 1.

At the time Pike returned to Madera, Thomas had been dating defendant for two weeks to a month. Thomas broke up with defendant the day after Pike returned. He told defendant that he was breaking up with her because the person he actually loved came back. Defendant was emotional and crying.

The next time Thomas saw her, defendant and Gran, who were dating, were at a birthday party at Samuel Browning's house. Thomas and Pike also went to the party, which took place on December 14, 2007.⁵ Defendant subsequently came over to Thomas's house a week or two before January 14, because she wanted to take Pike to shop for a wedding dress. Veronica Blumberg was with defendant.⁶ Thomas had known Blumberg for a couple of years. He had met her through Pike, with whom she was friends. When defendant, Blumberg, and Pike returned to the house after going to the mall, they all were laughing and seemed to be getting along. Thomas did not notice any tension between defendant and Pike. After Thomas and defendant broke up, Lynn told Pike that if Pike wanted, he would tell defendant to quit coming over to the house. Pike said things were fine and they were friends. She said they were "past it" and defendant was dating Gran now.

According to Blumberg, however, defendant took the breakup with Thomas "hard." Defendant was angry at Thomas and Pike, and she was frustrated and sad. Shenever got over or accepted the breakup. Defendant wanted Pike "out of the picture." At first, this meant she wanted Pike to go back to where she had been. After defendant met Gran, however, defendant wanted Pike dead. Defendant told Blumberg so in December 2007, sometime before Christmas.

At the time of the conversation, Gran, defendant, and Blumberg were at Gran's house, watching a movie in which the main character was an assassin who had an apprentice. Gran said his third job was being an assassin, and he asked Blumberg if she wanted to be his assistant. They joked around a bit, and Blumberg did not really give an answer.⁷ Gran said Blumberg's first job would be Pike, and asked how Blumberg would kill her. Blumberg said she would draw Pike out of the house and have her get in Blumberg's pickup, and Gran would be in the back and would strangle Pike. Blumberg also suggested making it look like a suicide. Blumberg had no animosity toward Pike and did not want her dead, and made the suggestion just to say something. Sometime later, Blumberg was taking defendant to school, and defendant said Gran had asked defendant to ask Blumberg if Blumberg still wanted to be his apprentice to kill Pike. Blumberg said no. Despite this, defendant continued to talk about different ways to do it. Blumberg changed the subject and again said she did not want to be involved. Blumberg knew, from what defendant told her, that defendant and Gran had a plan to kill Pike. Gran was supposed to do the killing. In return, defendant was to give him sex. Defendant said Pike's murder was supposed to be her (defendant's) Christmas gift. Defendant said the purpose of killing Pike was so defendant could get back with Thomas, whom defendant still loved. The purpose of the trip to the mall was so defendant could gain Pike's trust in order to be able to visit the house.

A week before January 14, Lynn was sick and stayed home from work. At some point, he heard Pike talking to someone. Later that day, Pike said Gran had come over to retrieve his keys or guard card (Lynn could not remember which) and then stayed for awhile. Thomas was at school at the time. Defendant told Blumberg that Gran had gone over to the house to play video games, but he could not do anything because the household was home sick.

On the morning of January 14, Thomas, who was a senior at Madera High School, left the house around 6:00 a.m., as he had an early weight-lifting class. Pike, who had her own room, was still asleep. Lynn had to be to work at 7:00 a.m. Pike was still at the house when he left. When he stopped by the house around 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. to pick up a movie a coworker wanted to borrow, Pike was on the couch, watching television.

Thomas and Pike exchanged text messages during Thomas's lunch period. Pike was looking for a book in which she had a recipe for the dinner she was supposed to make that night. Thomas last received a text message from Pike midway through his lunch period, sometime around the noon hour. He texted her throughout lunch, but she did not reply.⁸ He thought she might be with her father.

During lunch hour, Blumberg saw defendant texting on defendant's cell phone. Blumberg could not see the content of the texts, but asked whom defendant was texting. Defendant responded that she was texting Gran.⁹ She said he was over at Thomas and Pike's house. Defendant related that Gran could not strangle Pike because Pike kept touching her chin, and he asked what he should do. Defendant said she told him just to rape her, kill her, and get it over with. Defendant seemed agitated, annoyed, frustrated, and a bit angry.

After school, Blumberg dropped defendant off at Game Tyme, then went home. On the drive to Game Tyme, defendant said it was done. Blumberg understood this to mean Pike had been killed.

Thomas got out of school around 2:30 or 3:00 p.m., and it took him 10 or 15 minutes to get home. He walked inside and saw Pike lying on the ground. He threw his backpack, ran over near her, and then tried to focus to find a phone to call someone. He found a telephone handset and pushed the call button, and happened to...