People v. Quezada
| Decision Date | 31 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | H044717 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THEODORE ANTHONY QUEZADA, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1484428)
A jury found defendant Theodore Anthony Quezada guilty of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (a knife) (Pen. Code § 245, subd. (a)(1))1 (count 1) and attempted criminal threats (§§ 422, 664) (a lesser included offense of count 2).2 The jury found true that defendant had personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in committing the assault within the meaning of sections 667 and 1192.7. The trial court found the allegations of three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i); 1170.12) and two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) to be true. The trial courtsentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law and two consecutive five-year enhancement terms as to each conviction.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by (1) excluding his statements in violation of Evidence Code section 356 and his constitutional rights to present a defense and due process and (2) failing to exclude or sanitize his prior convictions in violation of Evidence Code section 352 and his constitutional rights to present a defense and due process. He maintains that the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors requires reversal on appeal. Defendant also contends that under the rule of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal. 2d 740 (Estrada), he is entitled to the benefit of the ameliorative changes to section 1385, which no longer bars a judge from exercising discretion to strike, in furtherance of justice, a prior serious felony conviction enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). He asserts that this case should be remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under section 1385, as amended effective January 1, 2019.
We reject defendant's claims of prejudicial error. But we agree that the trial court should be afforded the opportunity to exercise its discretion under the newly amended section 1385.
In May of 2014, Luis N. was working in construction at a McDonald's near the border of San Jose and Santa Clara. Each morning, he got to work by a combination of taking the light rail and biking. He had had the construction job for less than a month.
Shortly after 6:00 a.m. on May 25, 2014, Luis boarded the northbound light rail train with his bike at Curtner Station. Surveillance videos of the light rail train, which were recorded that morning, were admitted into evidence at trial.
Luis placed his bike in a bike rack across from a row of seats, walked down the aisle, and sat down at the back of the train car. Luis was wearing a red shirt, black pants,and a yellow backpack. Luis testified at trial that he had planned to get off at Civic Center Station and ride his bike to work from there.
At approximately 6:16 a.m. on May 25, 2014, defendant, who was talking on a cell phone and carrying a bottle, and Irene G., an unrelated passenger, boarded the same light rail train at Santa Clara Station. Defendant and Irene entered through different doors. Irene was taking the light rail to Metro/Airport Station, where she planned to take a bus to work, as she normally did. Irene had been taking that light rail route, a trip of 10 to 15 minutes, for two or two and a half years.
Irene had first noticed defendant at Santa Clara Station, where they were both sitting on benches and waiting for the train. She was seated less than five feet away from him. Defendant was on the phone, and he appeared to be under the influence of something. Defendant asked her for a dollar.
After boarding the light rail train, defendant, who was still talking on his cell phone, sat across the aisle from the bike rack, where Luis's bike was stored. Irene sat down about 15 to 23 feet away from defendant in a seat facing the aisle adjacent to the bike rack.
A few minutes later, after the stop at St. James Station, Luis got up from his seat, walked down the aisle, and stood in the area near the exit doors closest to the bike rack. Irene saw a man in a red shirt, later determined to be Luis, standing on the train. Luis conversed with and fist-bumped another man, who was standing with his bike in the same area. The train briefly stopped at the Japantown/Ayer Station and then continued. Luis continued to chat with the other passenger, and they fist-bumped again.
After Civic Center Station was announced as the next station, Luis approached the bike rack. As the train was reaching that stop, Luis first encountered defendant and asked him to move so that he could grab his bike. The first two times Luis asked defendant to move, Luis did so "nicely," politely, and "with respect." Defendant was still talking on his cell phone and said, "Hold on," and "scooted a little to the side."
Irene saw Luis trying to reach and take down his bike. She heard him say to the defendant, It appeared to her that defendant was ignoring Luis and continuing his phone call. Defendant stood, but he did not move out of the way. Luis was afraid that he would miss his stop and be late for work.
By the third time Luis asked him to move, Luis was feeling upset. Luis asked defendant to move in a more authoritative voice. As he stood up, defendant told Luis, "Don't tell me what to do, punk." Luis said, and "Now!"
At trial Luis recalled cussing and telling defendant to " 'get out of the f'ing way.' " Luis described defendant's attitude as "cocky." Irene similarly testified that defendant "had attitude."
Luis took his bike off the rack. Luis said, "Move, dude." Luis again commanded defendant to move, and defendant moved into the area by the exit doors. Luis put down the bike's kickstand, left the bike standing in the aisle, and approached defendant.
Although their conversation is mostly indecipherable on the surveillance video, Luis appears to be berating defendant. Luis said, "Don't be an idiot, bro." At trial, Luis acknowledged that he made a few threats against defendant at some point. Defendant, who seemed angry and agitated to Luis, threatened to kill Luis and slice his throat. Luis, who was angry, recalled saying something like, " 'Don't make me take my belt off and wh[u]p your a-s-s.' " Luis "smelled liquor in the air" in defendant's vicinity. Although he was shocked at the threat and thought it was possible that defendant would carry it out, Luis did not take it as seriously after he smelled the alcohol. Luis said something like, "In the name of Jesus, praise God, bro," to diffuse the situation and began to back off. Luis indicated that he did not feel threatened at that point.
Defendant said, "Don't hide behind God," and mumbled threats. Luis turned back, got in defendant's face, and said, "What's up?" They exchanged more words.
Luis was feeling angry and upset with defendant because he had missed his stop and would not get to work on time. Luis retrieved his bike from the aisle and moved back into the area by the exit doors, where defendant was standing. Luis and defendant continued to exchange words. Luis had his back to defendant at one point, but Luis did not feel scared or threatened at that moment.
As the train continued, Luis was standing near the exit doors, as was defendant. Luis pressed the button to request a stop at Gish Station, but he did not exit at the Gish Station. Luis thought that he would be able catch a bus at Metro/Airport Station, a stop after Gish Station and that the bus would stop directly across the street from the McDonald's where he was then working. At the Gish Station stop, Luis repositioned his bike so that he was facing toward the exit doors and holding his bike upright between defendant and himself.
Both Luis and defendant exited the light rail train at Metro/Airport Station, shortly before 6:30 a.m. Luis got off first, and defendant followed him out the same exit doors. After Luis stepped off the train with his bike, Luis was struck on the cheek from the right side. Luis did not see who struck him. Luis turned around, saw defendant, and began wrestling with him.
Irene also exited the light rail at Metro/Airport Station. As Irene was walking away, she saw Luis "situating his stuff on his bike." Irene turned around when she heard a commotion, and she saw defendant and Luis fighting. At trial she recalled seeing defendant lunge and swing at Luis. She never saw Luis throw a punch or hit defendant.
Luis was trying to take defendant down to the ground and restrain him. After Luis managed to get defendant on the ground and hold him there, Luis realized that blood was dripping from his cheek where he had been struck. Luis also noticed a closed folding knife in defendant's hand.
Irene saw Luis get on top of defendant and hold him down. Irene saw a lot of blood coming out of Luis's face. Luis asked her to call the police, and Irene called 911. Irene was scared.
A recording of the 911 call was played for the jury. On the 911 recording, a male voice could be heard in the background yelling, "Call the police." Irene said, "They're coming; they're coming." A male could be heard yelling, "There's a cut on my face, see." Irene said, "Yeah." The dispatcher said, "Ma'am," and instructed, "Continue to listen to my questions." A male could be heard on the recording repeatedly yelling, "Don't move" or "Don't fucking move."
Officers arrived at the scene. It was Irene's recollection that when the officers arrived, they told defendant to drop the knife, and an...
To continue reading
Request your trial