People v. Sanchez

Decision Date03 June 2020
Docket NumberF076908
Citation263 Cal.Rptr.3d 510,49 Cal.App.5th 961
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Andrew Loren SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Byron C. Lichstein, Auburn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Ivan P. Marrs, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

DETJEN, Acting P.J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Andrew Loren Sanchez was charged with second degree murder ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ;1 count 1), and assault on a child causing death ( § 273ab, subd. (a) ; count 2) in relation to the death of his nine-month-old son, M.R. A jury acquitted defendant of murder but could not reach a unanimous verdict on the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (b)) or the assault charge in count 2. The court declared a mistrial as to those unresolved charges. The People moved to amend the information to add a charge of child endangerment with enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily injury. (§§ 273a, subd. (a), 969f, 12022.7, subd. (a).) The court permitted the amendment over defendant's objection and a first amended information was filed charging defendant with assault on a child causing death and child endangerment with enhancements for great bodily injury. Defendant then entered a West plea2 to involuntary manslaughter and child endangerment with great bodily injury.3 He was sentenced to a term of five years and, with credits, was released to parole the same day.

On appeal, defendant contends the People could not permissibly retry him on the amended information and he therefore should be permitted to withdraw his plea. He specifically argues the jury's acquittal on the murder charge resolved an ultimate factual issue common to the charge of assault on a child causing death, rendering retrial impermissible under collateral estoppel principles inherent in the bar against being twice put in jeopardy. He also argues the doctrine of vindictive prosecution barred the People from adding a new charge of child endangerment with great bodily injury. Alternatively, defendant contends retrial on both charges was impermissible under section 654.

We hold: (1) the jury verdict of not guilty of murder ( § 187, subd. (a) ) did not preclude, on collateral estoppel grounds, a second trial on assault on a child causing death ( § 273ab, subd. (a) ) as the jury's verdict did not necessarily resolve an ultimate fact in defendant's favor as to the latter; (2) the People's amendment to the information to add a charge of child endangerment with enhancements for personally inflicting great bodily injury (§§ 273a, subd. (a), 969f, 12022.7, subd. (a)) did not give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness; and (3) section 654 did not preclude a subsequent trial on the first amended information. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND4

On March 5, 2015, defendant's son M.R. was nine months old. M.R. was at home with defendant and defendant's three-year-old daughter from a prior relationship, A.M., when he suffered a significant head injury. M.R. was flown to a hospital, where he underwent brain surgery and died shortly thereafter. Defendant initially reported the injury occurred when M.R. fell two feet from A.M.'s bed onto a carpeted floor during a diaper change. Defendant later told A.M.'s mother that A.M. hit M.R. in the head while defendant was outside smoking a cigarette. As detailed below, the mechanism of M.R.'s injury was disputed at trial.

M.R.'s Birth and First Months

Rebecca R. gave birth to M.R. following a 23-hour labor that included attempts at vacuum extraction and ended with a cesarean section. M.R. had no known medical issues at birth aside from a hearing issue, which resolved. He did not require special care and did not take medications.

Rebecca and defendant were initially unsure of M.R.'s paternity, and defendant did not visit M.R. for three to four days after his birth. Defendant then took a paternity test that confirmed he was M.R.'s father.

After M.R. was born, Rebecca lived with her sister. Defendant initially visited infrequently, but later began staying with Rebecca more often. However, Rebecca's sister did not permit defendant to move in.

While Rebecca lived with her sister, M.R. fell three feet from Rebecca's bed onto a concrete floor that was covered with thin padding and carpet. This occurred on two separate occasions, when M.R. was four months old and six months old, respectively.

In mid-January 2015, Rebecca and defendant moved together to another location. Approximately two weeks prior to M.R.'s death, while at the new residence, M.R. again fell approximately three feet from a bed onto a carpeted floor. M.R. did not require medical attention following any of his falls.

At the time of his death, M.R. could laugh, smile, cry, crawl, and pull himself up to stand. He did not see a doctor from age four months until the day of his death.

Defendant would sometimes take care of M.R. on his own or with his mother, but would become frustrated when M.R. would cry. He also did not like Rebecca holding M.R. or picking M.R. up when he cried because defendant thought this conduct would make M.R. a "faggot," a "pussy," or "a bitch or gay." Defendant sometimes sent Rebecca text messages expressing his frustration with M.R. In one message sent in November 2014, defendant wrote, "This fucking kid won't shut the fuck up. Now my mom just got home. Changed him. And now he won't shut the fuck up." In another message sent in February 2015, defendant wrote, "Your son is being a straight bitch. Don't want food. Kept crying, so gave him a bottle. Left his light on so he didn't go to bed, and he puked so I gave him a bath. Now he's on the couch with me. He's chill now, but fuck, dude. Swear he's a damn bitch at least once a day."

The Date of the Incident

On the morning of March 5, 2015, Rebecca fed M.R., changed his diaper, and put him down for a nap while defendant slept. She then got ready to go to school and woke defendant to help with the children. She packed a diaper bag for M.R. because she planned for him to go to a babysitter's house later that day while defendant and A.M. went to visit defendant's mother. When M.R. woke, Rebecca changed his diaper again and then left around 11:45 or noon, leaving M.R. in the care of defendant.5 She returned to the house briefly to retrieve her lunch, then went to school to study. While at school, Rebecca had two unremarkable phone conversations with defendant.

At 2:08 p.m., defendant approached a man performing work outside the house and asked him to call 911 because M.R. fell off a bed and was barely breathing. At approximately 2:10 p.m., defendant called Rebecca and told her to come home because M.R. was hurt. Defendant then got on the phone with the 911 operator and stayed on the line until paramedics arrived. Defendant told the operator that M.R. had rolled off the bed and had clenched up in what defendant thought was a slight seizure. Defendant stated he had waited approximately one minute before calling 911 because he had attempted to perform CPR, although he was not CPR certified.

Meanwhile, Rebecca left school immediately following the call from defendant. When she arrived home, an ambulance was outside the house but emergency personnel had yet to go inside. Rebecca went inside and saw that M.R. was not breathing consistently. She asked defendant what happened, and he reported M.R. had fallen off A.M.'s bed.6 He explained that he had turned away to get baby wipes and, when he turned back, M.R. was on the floor and was not crying. Rebecca went to M.R.'s side. A.M. was crying and defendant was "gathering things, and he kept going to [A.M.]" and "putting her in the room."

The paramedics arrived on scene at 2:23 p.m. They saw that M.R. was "posturing," which is a rhythmic movement of the arms or hands indicative of a head injury and massive internal bleeding. The posturing continued throughout the time the paramedics stayed with M.R. M.R. was wearing a diaper that was "securely and neatly fastened." A helicopter arrived at 3:10 p.m. and left at approximately 3:30 p.m. to take M.R. to the hospital.

Defendant refused to drive with Rebecca to the hospital on the ground he had to take care of A.M. Rebecca's brother eventually drove her to the hospital. Defendant took Rebecca's car and arrived at the hospital 30 to 40 minutes after Rebecca.

A CT scan revealed that M.R. had a subdural hematoma, also known as a blood clot, and M.R. had clinical signs his brain was beginning to herniate or be pushed out of the skull. The hospital's in-house pediatrician concluded that defendant's account of M.R. having fallen was inconsistent with the level of injury, which she described at trial as "the worst that [she] had ever seen." The pediatrician also conducted a standard review, which included an examination of M.R.'s eyes, and noted no abnormalities and no signs of external trauma.

A neurosurgeon was called to surgically evacuate M.R.'s hematoma. The surgeon removed a piece of M.R.'s skull and removed as much of the hematoma as he could. He also removed a piece of tissue that was part of the clot and sent it for pathology testing. There was active and severe bleeding within the brain. The surgical team attempted "typical maneuvers" to control the bleeding but M.R. kept hemorrhaging. The surgeon saw "a significant amount of bleeding" that appeared to be venous in nature, rather than arterial. This indicated either an open vein or some sort of damage to the sagittal sinus, where the veins drain through. The surgical team had difficulty controlling the bleeding, and could not determine whether M.R. had developed a blood clotting problem or whether there was a source of bleeding that could not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Sweeney v. Cal. Reg'l Water Quality Control Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 18 Febrero 2021
    ...We review the trial court's factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal determinations de novo. ( People v. Sanchez (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 961, 983, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 510.)In its statement of decision invalidating the ACL Order, the trial court observed that the parties had not ide......
  • Sweeney v. Cal. Reg'l Water Quality Control Bd.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 18 Febrero 2021
    ...(Ibid.) We review the trial court's factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal determinations de novo. (People v. Sanchez (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 961, 983 In its statement of decision invalidating the ACL Order, the trial court observed that the parties had not identified any civ......
  • People v. Cooper
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 12 Abril 2022
    ...( People v. Santamaria (1994) 8 Cal.4th 903, 912, fn. 3, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 624, 884 P.2d 81, italics added; People v. Sanchez (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 961, 974–975, 263 Cal.Rptr.3d 510.) Thus, in the criminal context, "[c]ollateral estoppel is traditionally applied to successive prosecutions, and......
  • People v. Conrady
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 4 Enero 2023
    ... ... Cal.4th 582; 617 ["the jury in this case had deliberated ... less than two full days, around 10 hours; we have upheld ... courts' denials of mistrials even after fruitless ... deliberations for longer periods"], disapproved on other ... grounds in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665, ... 686, fn. 13; People v. Cook (2006) 39 Cal.4th 566, ... 615 [no abuse of discretion where trial court ordered a ... deadlocked jury, which had deliberated for a day and a half, ... to continue deliberating for the afternoon].) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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