People v. Winn
| Decision Date | 30 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | H045157 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Alexander WINN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Attorney for Defendant and Appellant ALEXANDER WINN: Gene D. Vorobyov, San Francisco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Appellant
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Respondent THE PEOPLE: Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Seth K. Schalit, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Berit G. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Attorney General
A jury found defendant Alexander Winn guilty of first degree murder for the stabbing death of David Derrington after Derrington had Winn and his wife evicted from their home. The jury also found true a deadly weapon enhancement, and Winn admitted he had previously served five prior prison terms. The trial court imposed a total term of 31 years to life in prison, including five one-year terms for the prior prison term enhancements.
Winn initially raised two claims on appeal. First, he contended the trial court erred by admitting a photograph of the victim taken prior to the offense, while the victim was still alive. To the extent Winn's trial counsel failed to lodge certain objections to the photograph, Winn argued counsel provided ineffective assistance. Second, he contended the trial court erred during a post-verdict Marsden1 hearing by failing to inquire into Winn's claim that his counsel deprived him of the opportunity to testify in his defense.
In our prior opinion, we found no prejudicial error from those claims, and we affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court then granted Winn's petition for review and transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate our prior opinion and reconsider the matter in light of Senate Bill No. 136 (SB 136). SB 136 amended Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) to allow imposition of a one-year enhancement for a prison prior term only if the prior conviction is for a sexually violent offense. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020.) Winn contends we must apply the new law retroactively. The Attorney General concedes, and we accept the concession. We will strike the prior prison term enhancements, modify the sentence, and affirm the judgment as modified.
The prosecution charged Winn with willful, deliberate, premeditated murder. ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) The information further alleged Winn personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense, and that he had previously served five prior prison terms. ( Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1) ; former Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)
The case proceeded to jury trial in April 2017. Winn admitted the prior prison term allegations. The jury found Winn guilty of first degree murder and found the deadly weapon allegation true.
The trial court imposed a total sentence of 31 years to life in prison, consisting of a term of 25 to life for count 1, with a consecutive one-year term for the deadly weapon enhancement and five consecutive one-year terms for the prior prison term enhancements.
At the time of the offense, Winn was married to Traci Derrington, who lived with Winn at a house in Salinas.2 Winn was charged with killing Traci's ex-husband, David Derrington, in February 2016 after Derrington had Winn and Traci evicted from their house. Traci's marital separation agreement with Derrington had required her either to sell the Salinas house and share the proceeds with Derrington, or to give Derrington possession of the house, whereupon he would compensate her. But Traci failed to comply with the agreement and continued to occupy the house, causing Derrington to obtain a writ of possession in January 2016. Soon thereafter, a deputy sheriff evicted Winn and Traci from the house. About two weeks after the eviction, Winn returned to the house and stabbed Derrington to death. At trial, Winn did not dispute that he killed Derrington; rather, Winn argued that he did so in self-defense.
The prosecution presented several witnesses who testified about Winn's state of mind in the days preceding the eviction and stabbing. Terry Rockwood, the lawyer retained by Derrington to obtain the writ, spoke with Winn on the phone in early January 2016. Rockwood testified that Winn was angry, "not terribly polite," and "didn't have a good attitude about moving out of the house." Alice Taylor, Derrington's girlfriend of 12 years, was at the house on the day of the eviction. Taylor testified that she was sitting on a retaining wall in front of the house when Winn told her, "I have a knife, and I know how to use it." Taylor and Derrington felt threatened, and Taylor called the police that afternoon to report it.
Suzanne Smith, Traci's friend, testified that "[t]ensions were rising" before the eviction because Smith testified that Winn said, referring to Derrington, "That fucker needs to die."
Cameron Bush, a longtime friend of Derrington's, lived in the same neighborhood where the house was located. Traci would cut Bush's hair, and he had known Winn for about five or six years. About two months before the killing, Bush and a friend were driving home when they saw Winn standing at a bus stop, whereupon they stopped to pick him up. Winn got in the back seat of the car and asked them if they could get him a gun. Winn said he needed a gun due to the property dispute with Derrington, and Winn added that he was going to "handle business" and kill Derrington. Bush did not get a gun for Winn. Bush admitted he had multiple prior felony convictions, and he was in custody at Monterey County jail when he contacted the police with information about the killing. In exchange for his cooperation, the police offered to help get him out of jail and to make sure a warrant for his arrest was recalled.
Teresa Davis was a friend of Traci's, and Traci was her hair stylist. Davis testified that she had a phone call with Winn in which he blurted out, "I'm going to kill the mother fucking kids' dad," referring to Derrington. Davis told Traci about it, but Traci "laughed it off."
On February 21, 2016, about two weeks after Winn and Traci were evicted from the house, Traci called 911 to report the stabbing. Traci told the operator that she and Winn had come to the property to pick up some of their belongings, but that Winn and Derrington "just got in a big fight" and Winn had stabbed Derrington. In the background, Winn stated, "He attacked me," "He tried to attack me," and, "He shouldn't have thrown that chair at me." Traci told the operator Winn had stabbed Derrington with a military knife that was six to eight inches long.
The police arrived soon thereafter and took Winn into custody. They did not see any injuries anywhere on his hands or body. There was a large knife with blood on it sitting on the trunk of a nearby car. Derrington was lying on the ground with multiple bloody holes in his shirt around the center of his shirt and the left side of his body. His eyes and mouth were open, and there was frothy red blood coming out of his mouth. The police could not detect any pulse.
The forensic pathologist who autopsied Derrington found 19 stab wounds, three incised wounds, and a small skin puncture on his body. He had also suffered "about five minor abrasions to his upper extremities and a couple of contusions to his left toe." Derrington had been stabbed in the back multiple times and had suffered wounds on his forearm and wrist consistent with defensive wounds.
Winn contends the trial court erred by admitting a photograph taken of the victim while he was still alive. Winn argues the photograph was irrelevant and prejudicial, such that its admission violated Evidence Code sections 210 and 352, and violated his federal due process rights. He further contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to lodge sufficient objections on the last two grounds. The Attorney General contends the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and that Winn forfeited his claims under Evidence Code section 352 and federal due process by failing to object. Even assuming the trial court erred or trial counsel was ineffective, the Attorney General argues that Winn suffered no prejudice.
Winn moved pretrial to exclude a photograph taken of David Derrington when he was still alive. The photograph consisted of a portrait-style headshot showing the victim smiling while wearing a dress shirt, tie, and glasses. Winn's trial counsel filed a written motion arguing the photograph was irrelevant under Evidence Code sections 210 and 350. Counsel stipulated that Derrington was alive just prior to the stabbing, and counsel argued the photograph was thereby inadmissible under People v. Hendricks (1987) 43 Cal.3d 584, 238 Cal.Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350 () and People v. Ramos (1982) 30 Cal.3d 553, 180 Cal.Rptr. 266, 639 P.2d 908 ( Ramos ) ().
At a hearing on the matter, the prosecution argued the photograph was relevant to show what Derrington looked like before the killing. The prosecution also pointed out that the photograph showed Derrington wearing glasses, and a pair of crushed glasses were found at the scene next to his body. Finally, the prosecution argued that several witnesses—e.g., Derrington's attorney, Terry Rockwood—would testify about their past interactions with Derrington, and they could use the photograph to identify who they were testifying about. The trial court ruled that the photograph was relevant for that purpose. W...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Zaheer
...277, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 841 P.2d 897 ; People v. Lambert (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 905, 911, 125 Cal.Rptr. 404 ; People v. Winn (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 867, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 885.) Here, however, the combined effect of the defense counsel's failure to establish a necessary predicate fact and t......
-
People v. Choi
...unless the prior term was served for a sexually violent offense. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1; see People v. Winn (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 872, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 885 ( Winn ); People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337, 340–342, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 883 ( Lopez ).) This new law applies to nonfinal ......
-
People v. Gastelum
...883 ; People v. Petri (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 82, 93–95, 258 Cal.Rptr.2d 466, 2020 WL 614895, at *7 ; People v. Winn (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 885, 2020 WL 486505.) And, because Gastelum's prior prison term was for spousal abuse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), not a sexually violent of......
-
People v. Canedos
...in the language of the statute, or when retroactive application is clearly indicated by legislative intent." ( People v. Winn (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 872, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 885.) Beginning with its opinion in Estrada , however, our Supreme Court has recognized an exception to this rule in ......
-
Evidence
...will be upheld on appeal unless the prejudicial effect of such photographs clearly outweighs their probative value. People v. Winn , 44 Cal. App. 5th 859, 257 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 (2020), review denied (Apr. 22, 2020). Any error in trial court’s admission of a photograph of the victim while he......
-
Chapter 1 - §4. Relevance of specific evidence
...43 Cal.3d 584, 594 (photograph should have been excluded because victim's identity was not disputed); People v. Winn (6th Dist.2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 866-67 (photograph should have been excluded because its use was extended by prosecution beyond court's imposed limitation to show that vi......
-
Table of Cases null
...Cal. Rptr. 3d 88 (3d Dist. 2020)—Ch. 4-A, §4.1.4(1)(a); §4.1.4(2); §4.1.4(2)(c); Ch. 6, §2.2.1; Ch. 7, §3.1.1(1)(d) People v. Winn, 44 Cal. App. 5th 859, 257 Cal. Rptr. 3d 885 (6th Dist. 2020)—Ch. 1, §4.5.4; §6; Ch. 6, §3.4.2(4); §4.2 People v. Wisely, 224 Cal. App. 3 d 939, 274 Cal. Rptr. ......
-
Chapter 6 - §3. Application to specific evidence
...a child). See People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 56-57; People v. Thompson (1988) 45 Cal.3d 86, 115; People v. Winn (6th Dist.2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 866; see, e.g., People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1073 (in murder trial involving victims who worked as prostitutes and abused drugs......