People v. Pratt
| Docket Number | B306017 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 2022 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LATRELL PRATT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. MA073799 Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed with directions.
John A. Colucci, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Matthew Rodriguez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Latrell Pratt of murder and possession of a firearm by a felon and found true the allegation he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing the death of Israel Castaneda. The trial court sentenced Pratt to 25 years to life, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.
Pratt argues the trial court erred in denying his motion under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [106 S.Ct 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69] and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (), admitting certain expert witness testimony, and imposing the firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d), without exercising its discretion under section 12022.53, subdivision (h), to impose a lesser firearm enhancement.[1] We agree with Pratt's last contention, direct the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to impose a lesser firearm enhancement, and otherwise affirm.
One night in March 2018 Robert Ordaz went to a liquor store in a strip mall on 47th Street in Palmdale where he went every day to buy a beer and a lottery ticket. Ordaz spoke briefly to Castaneda, who also frequented the mall, outside the liquor store. Castaneda "did a little laugh" and approached someone in a parked car. The car left the parking lot, and Ordaz saw Castaneda get into a "confrontation" with a Black man outside the mall. Ordaz had seen the man "hundreds of times," but did not know him. The man wore a dark shirt and dark jeans with a white pattern on the back pockets and had "messed up corn rows." After arguing for less than two minutes, the man in dark jeans left the mall, but returned five or 10 minutes later.
Meanwhile, Ordaz got a hamburger from a fast food restaurant in the mall and returned to the liquor store. As he left the liquor store the second time, Ordaz saw the man in dark jeans summon Castaneda to an unlit area of the parking lot 40 feet from Ordaz. Ordaz heard gunshots and saw "the flash of the gun." Castaneda walked toward Ordaz and fell. Ordaz did not see the face of the shooter, who ran away.
Donyeld Bowen also saw Castaneda talking to a man as Bowen went into the liquor store. Bowen described the man as slim and tall, mid- to late-20s, Black or Hispanic, with braids that looked "like they needed to be redone" down to the back of his neck. Bowen said the man wore blue jeans, a black shirt, a dark beanie or hoodie, and black or black-and-white tennis shoes. As Bowen left the liquor store, he saw the man shoot Castaneda three times and run away. Castaneda died of his injuries.
Los Angeles County Sheriff's detectives responded to the scene of the shooting and obtained surveillance video from several establishments, including the liquor store and a bakery next door. The bakery's surveillance camera captured some of the parking lot outside the liquor store. Videos taken close in time to the shooting showed a man wearing dark jeans with a white design on the back pockets talking to Castaneda, who was wearing a light colored shirt. The man in dark jeans wore them so low on his hips that he stepped on the bottom hems as he walked.
Sheriff's detectives interviewed Ordaz and Bowen about the shooting, showed them the surveillance videos, and asked them if they recognized anyone in the videos. Ordaz told detectives the person he saw wearing dark jeans and talking to Castaneda the night of the shooting was the same person who appeared in the videos. Ordaz did not recognize the man's face, but said the man's clothing was the same. Bowen said the clothes he saw on the person in the videos were the same clothes he described to Sheriff's deputies worn by the shooter.[2]
Detectives also interviewed Anjad Al Saddi, the owner of the liquor store, who was working in the back of the store at the time of the shooting.[3] Detectives showed Saddi a picture of the person Ordaz and Bowen identified from surveillance videos as the shooter, and Saddi said the person used to be a "regular," but Saddi did not know his name. Saddi recalled he once kicked the man out of the liquor store for stealing. Saddi said he saw the man near the bakery the night of the shooting wearing a beanie and talking to Castaneda. Saddi told detectives the man's mother was also a regular customer, and she drove a silver car manufactured by a Korean company. Saddi agreed to tell the detectives the next time the man's mother came into the store, and when he did, detectives obtained the license plate number for the silver car. In a separate interview detectives showed Saddi a six-pack photographic lineup that included a picture of Pratt. Saddi identified Pratt as the person he saw the night of the shooting outside the bakery.
Detectives used the license plate number of the silver car to obtain an address for Pratt's mother. Detectives executed a search warrant on that property, where Pratt also lived. Inside Pratt's bedroom, detectives found a pair of dark blue jeans with a white design on the back pockets and torn hems, a pair of black gloves, a beanie, a black vest, and a black sweatshirt. Gunshot residue tests identified particles consistent with or characteristic of gunshot residue on the front thigh area of the jeans, the sweatshirt, and one of the gloves.
Detectives arrested Pratt and seized his cell phone. Data extracted from the phone showed someone used it to search various "most wanted" lists and to view an article on a news website with the headline "Suspect Sought in Fatal Shooting of a Man in Palmdale." The phone also had been used for a search query including the terms "Palmdale," "homicide," and "47th."
The People charged Pratt with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The People alleged Pratt personally used a firearm, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b); personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c); and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The People also alleged Pratt had served two prior terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On the People's motion, the court at trial struck the firearm allegations under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c). The jury convicted Pratt on both counts and found true the allegation he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death, within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). On the murder conviction, the trial court sentenced Pratt to a prison term of 25 years to life, plus 25 years to life for the enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). On the conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, the court imposed and under section 654 stayed execution of a three-year prison term. The court struck the enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b), because it no longer applied.[4]Pratt timely appealed.
The trial court gave 49 prospective jurors, including six Black prospective jurors, a questionnaire. The questionnaire sought primarily personal information, such as the prospective juror's job, marital and family status, and previous jury experience. The court questioned each prospective juror about his or her responses to the questionnaire before allowing the attorneys 20 minutes to question the jurors.
Prospective Juror No. 8380 was a single Black woman who worked as a phone operator for a large retail company.[5] She told the court she had one adult son, who was getting a medical degree in psychiatry, and three adult daughters, who worked for a delivery service, for Medicare, and as a preschool teacher, respectively. Prospective Juror No. 8380 had lived in the area for 19 years. None of Prospective Juror No. 8380's responses to the court's questions prompted any concerns from the court. The court ended its questioning of Prospective Juror No. 8380 by stating,
After questioning the prospective jurors individually, the trial court questioned them as a group. The court asked the prospective jurors to raise their hand if they had an affirmative response to any of the questions. The questions sought to elicit biases and to identify prospective jurors who would not be able to follow the court's instructions on the law or keep an open mind until the end of the trial. Prospective Juror No. 8380 did not raise her hand in response to any of the questions the court posed to the group.
Counsel for Pratt asked the group of prospective jurors questions about their ability to keep an open mind throughout the trial. None of the prospective...
To continue reading
Request your trial