People v. Ventura
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | F081771 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN ANGEL VENTURA, Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN ANGEL VENTURA, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTIAN ANGEL VENTURA, Defendant and Appellant.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTIAN ANGEL VENTURA, Defendant and Appellant.
F081771
California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
June 29, 2022
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Order filed Date 7/18/22
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, No. VCF306221 Melinda Myrle Reed, Judge.
Susan L. Jordan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION
THE COURT:
It is hereby ordered that the opinion filed herein on June 29, 2022, be modified as follows:
1. On page 20, the second sentence of the first paragraph should be replaced with the following:
Further, the record lacks any affirmative indication that Ventura knew Vasquez was likely to use lethal force-at least prior to the point when Vasquez began stabbing Hernandez.
Except for the modification set forth, the opinion previously filed remains unchanged.
This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.
OPINION
SMITH, J.
INTRODUCTION
In 2017, appellant Christian Angel Ventura entered a plea of no contest to voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,[1] § 192), robbery (§ 211), and shoplifting (§ 459.5). In addition, Ventura admitted to two criminal street gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(B) &(C)), and that he had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). In exchange for a stipulated prison sentence of 32 years four months, Ventura agreed to cooperate with the People in the investigation and prosecution of Uriel Vasquez and Raul Cardona, Ventura's accomplices to the crime.
On January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437) was enacted, eliminating the natural and probable consequences doctrine and amending the felony murder rule as it pertains to vicarious murder liability.
In August 2020, Ventura filed a motion to withdraw his plea/request for the trial court to withdraw its assent to the plea agreement. The trial court denied Ventura's motion. On appeal, Ventura contends the trial court abused its discretion in so doing. In supplemental briefing, Ventura further contends that the recent enactment of Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 775) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551)-which extended Senate Bill No. 1437's ameliorative provisions to convictions for attempted murder and manslaughter-supplies good cause to withdraw from his plea. We disagree.
The main problem is that Ventura is attempting to put the proverbial cart before the horse. Ventura begins from the assumption that he could not be convicted of murder under the new laws, and based on this premise, he argues he is therefore entitled to withdraw his manslaughter plea. However, in our view, the new laws simply afford Ventura the opportunity to make his case by seeking an evidentiary hearing under the new legislation where the prosecution must prove Ventura remains eligible for murder
liability. Ventura seeks to bypass this step in the process and obtain the relief on appeal without ever making a prima facie case for relief in the trial court. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we are not persuaded that he is entitled to such relief. We therefore affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 2, 2016, in case No. VCF306221, the Tulare County District Attorney's Office filed an information charging Ventura with murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1); active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 182.5; count 2); second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 3 &4); and conspiracy to commit shoplifting (§§ 182, subd. (a)(2)/459.5, count 5).[2] As to count 1, the information further alleged a robbery-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), and an on bail enhancement (§ 12022.1). As to counts 3 and 4, the information alleged Ventura had personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) As to all counts, it was alleged that Ventura had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
On August 2, 2016, following argument by the parties, the Honorable Lloyd L. Hicks denied Ventura's section 995 motion.
On June 29, 2017, Ventura entered a no contest plea pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, to voluntary manslaughter, one count of robbery, and one count of second degree burglary. He also admitted the gang enhancement for the voluntary manslaughter (§ 192) and robbery counts (§ 211), the prior strike allegation (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), and that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). The Honorable Gary Paden took Ventura's plea. The
parties stipulated the factual basis for the plea was based upon the transcript from Ventura's preliminary hearing.
On August 5, 2017, in front of Judge Paden, Ventura's prior plea was withdrawn. The plea agreement was modified to reduce the burglary conviction to a misdemeanor and the court struck Ventura's prior serious felony conviction. The total stipulated prison term of 32 years four months remained unchanged. Ventura entered a plea of no contest to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192) and robbery (§ 211), both with gang enhancements, and to misdemeanor shoplifting (§ 459.5). Ventura also admitted the prior strike allegation. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The parties stipulated that the factual basis for the plea was based upon the preliminary hearing transcripts or police reports.
On October 28, 2017, Ventura testified at Cardona's preliminary hearing. Cardona was one of his accomplices.
On January 1, 2019, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 to "amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)
On January 14, 2020, a substitution of counsel was filed in Ventura's case.
On August 6, 2020, Ventura filed a motion to withdraw his plea/request for the trial court to rescind its assent to the agreement so that he could renew his section 995 motion.
On August 27, 2020, following additional briefing and argument by the parties, the Honorable Judge Melinda Reed denied the motion. Ventura waived his rights
under People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 and was sentenced to a term of 34 years four months in state prison in accordance with his negotiated sentence.
Ventura filed a timely notice of appeal. His request for a certificate of probable cause was granted by the trial court.
FACTS
The Underlying Crime
The following statement of facts is derived from the transcript from Ventura's February 8, 2016 preliminary hearing.
On September 10, 2014, at around 1:53 a.m., Officer Quintero with the Dinuba Police Department was dispatched to Delgado Park, where he found Arturo Hernandez deceased. Hernandez had suffered multiple puncture wounds to his torso.
C.P., a witness, observed Ventura and Raul Cardona together at about midnight. C.P. identified Ventura and Cardona pursuant to a photographic lineup. That same morning, M.R., a nearby neighbor, heard an argument. She looked outside of her bathroom window and saw three men fleeing. She also heard an individual crying for help.
On September 12, 2014, Ventura was arrested for an unrelated burglary and questioned by Quintero. During questioning, Ventura stated that on the morning of the murder, he was at Delgado Park with Uriel Vasquez and Raul Cardona when Hernandez approached them. Cardona and Hernandez started fighting. Hernandez tried to flee by running toward an alleyway, but the group pursued Hernandez and assaulted him.
Ventura punched and kicked Hernandez. During the incident, Hernandez's pockets were searched. At some point during the altercation, Vasquez unintentionally stabbed Cardona's arm.
As Ventura began to run away, he claimed that he turned and saw Vasquez on top of Hernandez, stabbing him. Ventura and Vasquez then fled to Ventura's residence.
Later that same morning, Ventura located a screwdriver wrapped in a cloth on the counter of his home. Ventura retrieved the screwdriver with his hands and stored it. Officer's searched Ventura's home and located a screwdriver and blood-stained shorts underneath a sink in a cabinet. The blood belonged to Hernandez.
On September 17, 2014, Quintero spoke to H.E. H.E. told Quintero that on the morning of the murder, he had spoken with Cardona, and while at Cardona's residence, he located a wallet in Cardona's backyard. When H.E. examined the wallet, he found identification cards inside belonging to someone with the last name of Hernandez. Cardona burned the wallet.
Quintero asked H.E. whether he knew how Hernandez had died. H.E. stated that Hernandez had been stabbed with a screwdriver.
Trial Court's Ruling on Ventura's Motion to Withdraw the Plea
On August 6, 2020, Ventura filed a motion to withdraw his plea/request for the court to rescind its approval of the plea agreement. He did not attach a sworn affidavit to his motion.
On August 27, 2020, following consideration of written briefs by the parties, the trial court denied Ventura's motion to withdraw from the plea. Ventura did not testify at the hearing on his...
To continue reading
Request your trial