People v. Windfield

Decision Date04 January 2021
Docket NumberE055062
Citation273 Cal.Rptr.3d 583,59 Cal.App.5th 496
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KeAndre Dion WINDFIELD et al., Defendants and Appellants.

David P. Lampkin, Camarillo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant KeAndre Windfield.

Stephen M. Lathrop, Rolling Hills Estates, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Harquan Johnson.

Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette and Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., William M. Wood, A. Natasha Cortina and Alan L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RAMIREZ, P. J.

Defendants Harquan Johnson and KeAndre Windfield were each convicted of one count of murder and one count of attempted murder, and assault with a semi-automatic firearm, along with gun discharge and gang enhancement allegations as to the murder and attempted murder counts. The charges arose from the shooting of two members of their own gang, the Ramona Blocc Hustlas, resulting in the death of one of them. Both were sentenced to prison for 90 years to life. They appealed raising various claims. In the original opinion, filed August 19, 2014, we affirmed the convictions for both defendants, but reversed Johnson's sentence pursuant to People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 324 P.3d 245, because, as a juvenile at the time of the crime, his sentence of 90 years to life was the functional equivalent of a term of life without possibility of parole and we directed other modifications of the sentence and abstracts of judgment.

On November 12, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied both defendants' petitions for review, but, on its own motion, issued a grant-and-hold of review as to defendant Johnson, for consideration pending review in In re Alatriste , S214652, In re Bonilla , S214960, and People v. Franklin , S217699. On May 26, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 496, 370 P.3d 1053 ( Franklin ), and retransferred this case to our court with directions to vacate our opinion and to reconsider Johnson's sentence in light of Franklin . We vacated the original opinion and issued our second opinion on September 28, 2016, affirming those portions of our original opinion pertaining to issues not subject to the grant and hold, and reconsidered Johnson's sentencing claim in light of Franklin .

Defendants again petitioned for review. This time, the Supreme Court granted review, deferring further action pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in People v. Canizales , which was then pending in the Supreme Court. Following the issuance of that opinion, the Supreme Court retransferred the cases back to this court with directions to vacate our opinion and to reconsider the cause in light of People v Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 370, 442 P.3d 686, and People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 612, 619, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 34. We again modified the judgment in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. ( People v. Windfield et al. , (2020) formerly published at 44 Cal.App.5th 196, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 189.) Defendants again petitioned for review.

On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court again granted review, and again transferred the matter to our court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682). The Supreme Court also de-published the decision. We now consider the matter in light of Senate Bill No. 620.

FACTS

Several months prior to June 2009, Marvin Moore and his best friend, Montoyea Smith, went to a Ramona Blocc Hustlas (RBH) gang party. Smith got into a fight with two brothers, Quinn and Lamar Wise, who were also members of RBH, and were Moore's cousins. Defendant Windfield, also an RBH gang member, stepped in to help the Wise brothers, and blindsided Smith with a punch. Moore was not actively engaged in the fight, but he and others separated Smith from Windfield and the Wise brothers.

On June 11, 2009, there was another RBH gathering at an apartment complex on East Jackson in Rialto. Ricky Peete, was there with three female companions. After midnight, Smith, a longtime friend of Peete's, drove up. Later, Moore pulled up and approached Smith. Smith was drunk and brought up the fight that had taken place a few months earlier, expressing anger that Moore had not stepped in the help him. The two men argued for a while about how Moore had failed him. Smith pulled out a hand gun and cocked it, stating he wanted to shoot up the Ramona gang's neighborhood.

After Smith displayed the gun, a van pulled up and parked across the street from where Smith and Moore were arguing. The driver was defendant Windfield's sister, Jontre Windfield (Jontre). Defendants Windfield and Johnson were in the van along with M. G. (the van's owner) and her children, and two other RBH gang members. When the van parked, defendant Windfield got out and began to cross the street. When Smith saw Windfield, he started yelling that Windfield had jumped him and pointed his gun at Windfield. Windfield walked at a fast pace back toward the van, as defendant Johnson got out of the vehicle. Smith chased both defendants around the van until the defendants ran away through an alley.

Jontre and M. G. exited the van and Jontre yelled at Smith that there were women and a child in the van. Smith pointed the gun in her face. Moore and Peete intervened, restraining Smith, and the women got back into the van and drove away as Smith walked back across the street. Jontre and M. G. then picked up the defendants and another of the men who had left through the alley. As she drove back to the apartment on East Ramona Drive, where she and the defendants lived, Jontre told defendants that Smith had pointed his gun at her and stated several times that Smith had to die. Windfield was angry at being chased away by Smith and said Smith had to be taken care of that night. After the van left East Jackson, Smith put his handgun in his car and calmed down.

Minutes later, when the van arrived at the Ramona Drive residence, everyone went inside except defendants. Johnson and Windfield each retrieved a firearm, took the keys to the van from its owner, M.G., and left, after Windfield said that they were returning to East Jackson.

Meanwhile, at the East Jackson apartment building, the police arrived in response to a call about a fight, so Moore told Smith to put his gun away. The people who were out on the street scattered at the arrival of police, leaving Moore and Nikki R. (Nikki), outside. Moore and Nikki told police that the people involved in the fight had dispersed, so the officers drove away. Smith then returned to the street where Moore talked to him for about five minutes before driving away. Then Peete came out and talked to Smith.

While Peete and Smith were talking, Nikki heard the gate at the back of the building slam and went to investigate. She saw defendants Windfield and Johnson in the courtyard with guns and she told them they should leave, but they declined. Nikki walked back towards the front of the building while the defendants stayed in the back. Nikki told Peete what she had seen, but not Smith. When Smith started walking toward the back, Nikki and Peete tried to stop him, telling him to go home, but Smith said he needed to get his marijuana from the back. Peete went with him and they walked shoulder to shoulder.

As Smith pushed past Nikki and Peete, defendants stepped forward and began firing rapidly. Peete and Smith turned and stumbled into each other, and both fell.

Peete was hit in the leg and Smith fell on top of him, bleeding from his midsection. As Peete and Smith lay on the ground, defendant Windfield stood over them, placed his gun to Smith's head, and fired a final shot. Then the defendants left.

After the defendants left, Peete, who had been shot once in the leg, got up, and left in the car that Jontre had lent him earlier. Nikki ran into the East Jackson apartment and told those present that defendants had run from the alley into the apartment courtyard and shot Smith. Moore left the East Jackson Street apartment complex and drove to the Windfields' Ramona Drive residence to apologize to Windfield for Smith's behavior. Windfield said Smith was dead, and that "he had to go." However, Windfield told Moore that it was Johnson who shot Smith, not him. Moore left.

M. G. was at the Ramona Drive apartment when the defendant's returned, approximately one-half hour after they had left with the firearms. Johnson asked M. G. to go to the Hustla Squad hood to drop his clothes off there, in order to implicate the Hustla Squad in the shooting.1

Afterwards, Windfield and Johnson discussed the shooting in the living room. Windfield said he shot all his bullets at Smith, and Johnson demonstrated how he walked over to Smith after he fell to the ground and shot him in his chest and face, holding the gun in both hands. During this conversation, Jontre got a call from Peete who told her he had been shot. Peete arrived at the apartment shortly after the call, limping and bleeding. Jontre drove Peete first to his mother's house and then to the hospital. During the drive to Peete's mother's house, Jontre said Smith had to die for putting the gun in her face.

The next day, at the Ramona Drive apartment, M. G. saw Windfield with Peete, who was on crutches, outside the apartment. Windfield told Peete they had not intended to shoot him. Back inside the apartment, Windfield told M. G. "he [Smith] had to go," because he had Windfield running like a "bitch."

Smith had been hit by at least 10 shots, six of which would have been fatal individually, including a shot fired approximately one-half inch from Smith's head. The cause...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • People v. Dominguez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 2021
    ...persons, the intent to kill element must be established independently as to each alleged victim. ( People v. Windfield (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 496, 514, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ( Windfield ).) The nature of the attack directed at a primary victim may support an inference that the defendant intend......
  • People v. Mumin
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 2021
    ...against two people who were walking side by side in such close proximity that they fell into each other" ( People v. Windfield (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 496, 517, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ); and where a defendant fired 16 rounds from a high-powered assault rifle at an occupied house, "targeting spec......
  • People v. Mumin
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 19, 2021
    ...against two people who were walking side by side in such close proximity that they fell into each other" ( People v. Windfield (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 496, 517, 273 Cal.Rptr.3d 583 ); and where a defendant fired 16 rounds from a high-powered assault rifle at an occupied house, "targeting spec......
  • People v. Perez
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2021
    ...they are entitled to the benefit of this ameliorative change in the law. The People concede the point, and we agree. (People v. Windfield (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 496, 529.) Also, the People do not argue that it would be an abuse of discretion to strike the firearm enhancements. Accordingly, w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...387 P.3d 1187 (Cal. 2017)—Ch. 4-A, §3.3.1(1)(a); C, §6.5.6; Ch. 5-B, §2.2.2; §4.2.1(1); Ch. 6, §2.2.3(1); §3.4.1 People v. Windfield, 59 Cal. App. 5th 496, 273 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583 (4th Dist. 2021)—Ch. 3-B, §1.2.2; Ch. 5-E, §6.2 People v. Winkler, 56 Cal. App. 5th 1102, 271 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88 (3......
  • Chapter 3 - §1. Overview
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 3 Hearsay
    • Invalid date
    ...to what one can expect the prosecution to do to procure the attendance of a noncritical witness"); People v. Windfield (4th Dist.2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 496, 512-13 (prosecution employed due diligence when there was no good cause witness would flee, prosecution helped witness relocate, search ......
  • Chapter 5 - §6. Procedure for excluding evidence
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 292 (prosecution has burden to prove witness unavailability); People v. Windfield (4th Dist.2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 496, 511 (prosecution has burden of showing unavailability and that it made a "good-faith effort" or, alternatively, exercised reasonable or du......

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