People v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 08 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | B252979 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH CARL STANLEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA348056
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Bob S. Bowers, Jr., Judge. Affirmed in part as modified and reversed in part.
John Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James W. Bilderback II, and William N. Frank, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Defendant Joseph Carl Stanley was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole after a jury convicted him of murdering brothers Manuel and Roberto Romero.1 On appeal, defendant contends, notwithstanding this court's decision in Stanley v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 265 (Stanley I), that he did not impliedly consent to a mistrial in his case, and that the Double Jeopardy Clause therefore barred his retrial. We conclude Stanley I is law of the case and therefore do not reexamine the merits of that opinion; thus, retrial was proper.
Defendant also contends his convictions are not supported by substantial evidence. We reject defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. We also conclude the trial court erroneously imposed state surcharges and penalty assessments totaling $324, an inapplicable $300 parole revocation fine, and four, rather than three, $30 court facilities assessments. We therefore reverse the state surcharge, penalty assessments, and fine, and modify the judgment to remove the extra $30 assessment. In all other respects, and as modified, the judgment is affirmed.
By information filed October 14, 2009, defendant was charged with premeditated murder of Manuel and Roberto Romero (Pen. Code,2 § 187, subd. (a); counts 1 and 2); attemptedpossession for sale of methamphetamine (§ 664, Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 3); and possession of a firearm by a felon with a prior (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 4).3 As to counts 1 and 2, the information alleged defendant committed multiple murders—a special circumstance under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3)—and during the commission of the murders, defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) [personal use], (c) [personal and intentional discharge], (d) [personal and intentional discharge causing death]). The information also alleged three 32-year-old prior convictions and one 35-year-old juvenile adjudication constituted strike priors (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); § 667, subd. (b)-(i)) and serious-felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant pled not guilty and denied the allegations.
On Friday, November 4, 2011, a jury was sworn to try the case. The following Monday, November 7, 2011, the court declared a mistrial and set a new trial date. On December 12, 2011, defendant moved for dismissal based on double jeopardy and also proffered a plea of once in jeopardy. The trial court denied the dismissal motion after finding defense counsel had impliedly consented to dismissal of the jury and the resultingmistrial. In light of that conclusion, the trial court refused to accept the proffered plea of once in jeopardy.4 Defendant petitioned this court for writ of prohibition and a stay was granted. On May 22, 2012, a different panel of this court denied the petition by published decision on the ground that defendant had impliedly consented to a mistrial. (Stanley I, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at pp. 294-295 (Stanley I).) The California Supreme Court denied review. Proceedings resumed in the trial court on September 28, 2012.
On November 8, 2012, defendant, through counsel, filed a federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (See Stanley v. Baca (C.D.Cal. June 25, 2013, No. CV 12-9569-JAK (SH)) 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 89456.) Defendant claimed he was being prosecuted in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause because the mistrial was declared without necessity or consent. The district court found abstention proper under Younger v. Harris (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 and dismissed the petition on June 25, 2013. (Stanley v. Baca, supra, at p. *6.) On July 3, 2013, defendant appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (See Stanley v. Baca (9th Cir. Feb. 19, 2014, No. 13-56172) 555 Fed.Appx. 707 (Stanley II).) On July 8, 2013, the Ninth Circuit denied defendant's request to stay his trial, indicating the denial was without prejudice to defendant renewing his request before the state trial court. Trial was not stayed, and jury selection began the next day. Defendant'sfederal appeal was not resolved until after he was tried, convicted, and sentenced in this case.
Defendant's second jury trial began on July 15, 2013. After an eight-day trial followed by nearly eight hours of deliberations, a jury found defendant guilty of the first degree, premeditated murders of Manuel and Roberto Romero (§ 187, subd. (a); counts 1 and 2), and found true the multiple-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) as well as the firearm allegations (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)-(d)). The jury also convicted defendant of possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1); count 4)5 but acquitted him of attempted possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 664, Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 3).
Defendant waived jury trial on the prior-conviction allegations. After a bench trial, the court found the prior strikes true. The court denied defendant's motion for a new trial and his motion to reduce the degree of the crime, and sentenced him to two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole plus two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. For count 1 (§ 187, subd. (a)), the court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole based on the special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and the strike priors (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); § 667, subd. (b)-(i)); the court added 25 years to life for the firearm allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (d) []), to run consecutive, and stayed the remainingfirearm allegations under section 12022.5, subdivision (f). The court imposed an identical, consecutive sentence for count 2 (§ 187, subd. (a)). The court stayed count 4 under section 654, and struck the serious-felony prior under section 667, subdivision (a)(2).
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on November 19, 2013.
On February 19, 2014, after briefing and oral argument, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order dismissing defendant's federal writ petition and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he impliedly consented to the discharge of his first jury and the resulting mistrial. (Stanley II, supra, 555 Fed.Appx. at pp. 708-709.) This appeal was fully briefed on January 8, 2015. On May 13, 2015, we deferred further consideration of the appeal pending resolution of defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus in Stanley II.
On July 24, 2015, the Honorable Gail J. Standish, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a report and recommendation, which the district court adopted on September 15, 2015. (Stanley v. Baca (C.D.Cal. 2015) 137 F.Supp.3d 1192 (Stanley III).) The district court characterized defendant's pending federal writ petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C § 2254 and ordered him to address "how he wishes to proceed, including whether he wishes to proceed solely with his existing double jeopardy claim or have this action stayed while he exhausts any additional claims arising from his intervening conviction." (Stanley III, at p. 1193.) On October 15, 2015, defendant asked the district court to stay his federal case until his state appeal is resolved. The district court granted hisrequest, and on December 4, 2015, we resumed consideration of this appeal.
In May 2008, defendant was living in Las Vegas with his wife, Tracey. He owned a barbershop, and wore his hair in dreadlocks, with the sides of his head shaved—a style described at trial as a dreadlock mohawk. Although he lived in Las Vegas, defendant grew up in Los Angeles—on West 74th Street between Figueroa and Flower—and still had family in the area. Defendant's customers called him by his childhood nickname, JoJo.
Defendant's mobile phone number was (702) 352-5550. The phone was used on May 3, 2008, in North Las Vegas, Nevada. Late that night, defendant traveled from North Las Vegas to Los Angeles. By 3:17 a.m. on May 4, 2008, defendant had reached South Los Angeles. On May 4, 2008, defendant spent the day in the city.
Manuel Romero lived in a van, which he parked in front of his family's house at 528 West 74th Street, between Hoover and Figueroa in Los Angeles. Manuel and his brother Roberto had a nephew named Jorge Duke. Manuel raised Duke, and Duke thought of Manuel as his father. Kathi Preston also lived on West 74th Street, west of Figueroa. Her mother, Jean Preston,6 and her son, Devondre Haynes, lived with her.
Around 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2008, defendant arrived at Kathi's house in an SUV. He wore his hair in blonde and black dreadlocks with the sides of his head shaved and was accompanied by an African-American woman. Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial