Source: http://academy.lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/people-v-morales-2018-cal-app-unpub-lexis-562-ca-ct-app-2018/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:28:20+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID MORALES, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: RUVOLO, P. J.; RIVERA, J., [*] STREETER, J. concurred.
Opinion by: RUVOLO, P. J.
Appellant was driving while intoxicated when he fired a pistol at three men walking on the grounds of the Valencia Gardens housing project in San Francisco (Valencia Gardens). Then, while attempting to flee from the police, appellant struck another car causing it to hit a pedestrian. The pedestrian and a passenger in the car died and the other driver was seriously injured. These events resulted in appellant’s convictions for multiple offenses, including felony assault, driving under the influence causing injury, and manslaughter. The jury also found true multiple sentence enhancement allegations, including that appellant caused injury and death to more than one victim. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of more than 27 years.
We conclude that appellant was not entitled to a self-defense jury instruction and therefore affirm the judgment. However, a consecutive eight-month sentence enhancement for causing injury to multiple victims should have been stayed under section 654. Therefore, we will remand this case so the trial court can correct this sentencing error. At that time, the court should also determine whether appellant was afforded an opportunity to make a record of evidence pertinent to a future youth offender parole hearing, and whether to strike or dismiss appellant’s personal gun use sentence enhancements.
On January 1, 2013, at around 7:45 a.m., James Smith witnessed a shooting from the window of his ground floor apartment at Valencia Gardens. Smith saw a black car pull up near three men who were walking on Rosa Parks Lane, which runs through the project. The driver extended his arm out the window and pointed in the direction of the men. Then Smith heard a single gunshot. The men ran for cover behind parked cars until the car moved down the street. These events happened so fast that Smith doubted there was time for conversation, but if words were exchanged he would not have been able to hear them.
Smith testified that after the car moved down the street, the men came out of hiding and began yelling and gesturing at the car and may have thrown “pebbles” or something at the vehicle. Then the driver stopped his car and pointed the gun at the men again, at which point “they retreated back behind the parked cars.” After the driver started driving again, Smith left his window to call 911. When he returned to the window with phone in hand, he saw the black car coming back up Rosa Parks Lane. Two of the men had gone into a unit and Smith surmised the third had retreated down Maxwell Court because the driver aimed his gun down that street before driving away. Smith gave police a description and license plate number of the car.
San Francisco Police Officer Kevin Stancombe was dispatched to the scene. Arriving on his motorcycle, Stancombe searched the area and spotted appellant driving the black car that Smith had described in his report. Responding to Stancombe’s request for backup, Officer Antonio Claudio and his partner arrived at the intersection of Mission and 21st Street in a marked patrol car. Appellant was stopped at the traffic light and Claudio pulled in behind him and activated his red and blue lights. As Claudio and his partner were getting out of the patrol car, appellant “sped off and made a left turn onto 21st Street.” By that point, another back-up unit had arrived and both patrol cars gave chase. Appellant ran a red light at the intersection of 21st and South Van Ness and slammed into a white Toyota Tercel that was traveling north. The collision caused the Toyota to strike a pedestrian.
When appellant’s car came to a stop, officers at the scene directed him to exit the vehicle with his hands up. Appellant did not comply. He ducked down and appeared to be looking for something, forcing officers to approach and remove him from the vehicle. A .40-caliber semiautomatic firearm was found in the driver’s side foot well of appellant’s car. Appellant was transported to the hospital, where his blood was drawn at 8:36 a.m. A forensic toxicology analysis showed that appellant had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.12 percent. The driver of the Toyota that appellant crashed into suffered serious injuries and spent 30 days in the hospital. The man’s aunt, who was in the back seat of the Toyota, died as result of her injuries. The pedestrian who was hit by the Toyota also died.
D’Paris Williams, one of the three men appellant confronted at Valencia Gardens, testified at appellant’s trial. Williams had suffered a head injury in an unrelated incident, which made it difficult for him to remember much about the altercation with appellant. He did remember that he was with two other men at the complex when “somebody just came by and just shot at us.” After refreshing his memory with a statement he previously made to the police, Williams recalled that a man in a black car came up to them and said “Where you from?” Williams said Valencia Gardens and then he ducked because a shot was fired.
At trial, the jury watched video of surveillance footage from cameras near the location of the shooting that was recorded between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on January 1, 2013. Two DVD discs admitted into evidence as People’s Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 15 show three men walking through the complex who do not appear to be armed. They also show appellant’s car driving down the street more than once. There is no clear depiction of the shooting itself, but the cameras capture the men running for cover behind parked cars and coming out only after appellant’s car has retreated down the street.
The prosecution also presented expert evidence regarding criminal street gangs through the testimony of San Francisco Police Sergeant Michael Browne, a member of the department’s gang task force. Browne testified that he had a few personal interactions with appellant and was also familiar with his history, which indicated that appellant joined the Norteno street gang when he was 14 years old. Browne testified about appellant’s prior convictions and other incidents which led Browne to conclude that appellant was an active gang member when he confronted the three men at Valencia Gardens. Browne also offered the opinion that it was likely that appellant’s crimes at the housing project were committed for the benefit of the Norteno gang. According to Browne, a common tactic associated with gang crimes is for the gang member to ask potential victims where they are from. A response other than the gang member’s affiliation “would be a confrontational response at the minimum” and could lead to an assault or shooting.
Appellant testified that prior to the events of January 1, 2013, he was relatively happy. He had a job, his girlfriend was pregnant with his first child, and he was preparing to apply to college. He had made mistakes in his youth and committed crimes, but he was in the process of changing his life. He was also making an effort to extricate himself from the Norteno gang.
Appellant testified that he did not know if the Norteno gang had any problem with the residents of Valencia Gardens, and that his decision to go back and look for the men had nothing to do with his gang affiliation. He loved his car, had just gotten it fixed, and he was “pissed” and “real angry” because he could not think of any reason that anybody would throw anything at his car. After reentering Valencia Gardens, appellant pulled up near the group of guys he had seen on the corner, and then the following events occurred: “And I just remember I was yelling at them as I was pulling up. And they were yelling back, and it was all real fast. I just remember I pulled up in the area, and they made like some fast movements. I don’t know; I just I remember feeling scared, thinking I was in danger. And I just remember going for my gun to protect myself, and I just—I grabbed the gun real fast.” Then, appellant “heard” the gunshot from his own gun and was “startled” and “shocked” because he thought he had the safety on. He knew the gun was loaded and could have fired several more shots, but he had not planned to shoot it to begin with, so he just drove away. Under cross-examination appellant admitted he pulled the trigger but he reiterated that things happened very fast and he thought the safety was on.
At trial, the defense also elicited testimony from San Francisco Police Officer Jeffrey Ross. Ross testified that the three men involved in the altercation with appellant at Valencia Gardens all gave statements to the police. Each man was transported to the station by a different officer and, as they were entering the building, one of the men made the following statement to nobody in particular: “I should not have thrown a rock at that car.” The defense also presented testimony from a firearm expert who analyzed the gun recovered from appellant’s car. The witness testified that he was able to pull the trigger and have the hammer drop even when the safety was on, which should not have happened if the gun was functioning properly.
The jury also found true sentence enhancement allegations that appellant intentionally discharged a firearm during the commission of a felony (§ 12022.5, subd. (a); counts 1, 2, 3); personally inflicted great bodily injury during commission of the charged offenses (§ 12022.7, subd. (a); counts 8, 11, 12); and caused bodily injury and death to more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23558; count 8). However, the jury returned not true verdicts with respect to enhancement allegations that appellant’s offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b); counts 1, 2, 3, 4).
The sentencing hearing was delayed for several months while appellant pursued and ultimately obtained writ relief with respect to a prior felony conviction for participation in a criminal street gang in violation of section 186.22, subdivision (a). On May 5, 2016, appellant was sentenced to a total term of 27 years 8 months in state prison. The components of this sentence are set forth in our discussion of appellant’s claim of sentencing error.
Appellant contends that his convictions for felony assault with a semiautomatic weapon (counts 1-3) and negligent discharge of a firearm (count 4) must be reversed because the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury regarding self-defense.
The defense argued that a self-defense instruction was supported by evidence that appellant was afraid for his safety when he brandished his gun because he was outnumbered by three men who made sudden movements and may even have shot at him. According to this defense theory, appellant intentionally brandished but did not intentionally fire his gun. Rather it accidentally discharged because the safety did not function as is should have. The prosecutor opposed a self-defense instruction, arguing that there could be a question about whether the gun accidentally discharged, but there was no evidence that appellant was acting in self-defense when he assaulted the men at Valencia Gardens.
The trial court did not err by refusing to give CALCRIM No. 3470 because the record does not contain evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in favor of appellant with respect to his theory of self-defense. (See Salas, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 982.) Rather, the trial evidence affirmatively shows that he did not act in self-defense when he assaulted the three men at Valencia Gardens. Appellant, who was driving a car, decided when to come and go, while the men, who were all on foot, were forced to hide behind cars for their own safety. Appellant himself conceded that he tracked down the men because he was furious that they had thrown something at his car, and that he pointed a loaded handgun at them. Appellant claimed he thought the safety was on, but admitted that he pulled the trigger. He also claimed there was a lot of yelling and commotion, but he did not testify that the men had a weapon or that they actually threatened him in any way.
Appellant contends that a self-defense instruction was supported by substantial evidence that the three men were the “initial aggressors” because they threw a rock which caused appellant to believe that he was being fired upon. The problem with this argument is that appellant testified that when he heard or felt something hit his car, and thought somebody may have shot at him, he reacted with anger not fear. Precisely because appellant was mad rather than afraid, he turned around and found the three men and brandished his loaded gun at them. Thus, by his own admission, appellant was not acting in self-defense when he tracked down the three men and assaulted them with his gun.
“‘To justify an act of self-defense . . . the defendant must have an honest and reasonable belief that bodily injury is about to be inflicted on him. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Minifie (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1055, 1064, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 133, 920 P.2d 1337, italics omitted.) Furthermore, “[t]he threat of bodily injury must be imminent [citation], and ‘. . . any right of self-defense is limited to the use of such force as is reasonable under the circumstances. [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 1064-1065.) Here, assuming appellant genuinely believed he was in danger at some point, undisputed evidence regarding the circumstances under which appellant drew and fired his gun preclude a finding that his belief was reasonable. That same evidence conclusively shows that appellant did not face an imminent threat of bodily injury because he was armed and in a moving vehicle while the unarmed men were on foot. Finally, by the same token, appellant’s decision to draw a loaded weapon was by its very nature an excessive response to any fear that appellant experienced as a result of some unspecified movements by the three men. In short, the trial court did not err by refusing to give CALCRIM No. 3470 because the trial evidence did not support it.
At the May 2016 sentencing hearing, the trial court explained the components of appellant’s aggregate sentence of 27 years 8 months in state prison. The court stated that appellant’s manslaughter convictions were his most serious offenses, but found that it was legally required to designate one of the assaults (count 1) as the principal term, which it calculated as 9 years plus 4 years for the sentence enhancement, for a total of 13 years. The court imposed consecutive aggregate terms of 3 years 4 months for the other two assaults (counts 2, 3).
For negligent discharge of a firearm (count 4), the court sentenced appellant to a 2-year term, which was stayed under section 654 based on the court’s finding that it was the same conduct punished in counts 1 through 3.
The court imposed a concurrent midterm sentence of 2 years for appellant’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (count 5).
The court then found that appellant’s convictions for evading a police officer in willful disregard for the safety of persons or property (count 6) and evading a police officer causing serious bodily injury (count 7) were based on the same conduct. Therefore, it imposed a 2-year term for count 6, which was stayed under section 654, and a consecutive term of 1 year 8 months for the count 7 conviction.
For driving while under the influence causing injury (count 8), the court imposed an aggregate consecutive sentence of 2 years 4 months, which included 8 months for the offense, 1 year for a great bodily injury enhancement, and 8 months for a multiple victim enhancement.
Finally, the court imposed consecutive 2-year terms for each of the manslaughter convictions (counts 11, 12), but it stayed sentences with respect to great bodily injury enhancement allegations that had been found true by the jury with respect to each of these offenses.
Appellant first contends that the trial court violated section 654 by imposing a consecutive term for appellant’s count 7 conviction for evading an officer causing injury. According to appellant, this offense and the offenses of driving under the influence (DUI) causing injury (count 8) and vehicular manslaughter (counts 11, 12) were part of an indivisible course of conduct because they all involved a single criminal objective—to evade the police. Thus, appellant concludes, imposing a consecutive term under count 7 constituted an impermissible double punishment because appellant was also sentenced to consecutive terms for the DUI and two manslaughter convictions.
In the present case, the record contains substantial evidence that appellant pursued two criminal objectives after committing his crimes at Valencia Gardens. First, he made the decision to drive a car while he was intoxicated. This conduct proximately caused injury to one victim (count 8) and death to two victims (counts 11, 12). Second, while appellant was driving intoxicated, he developed an additional objective to evade the police. This objective was separate from, and not merely incidental to, appellant’s commission of the DUI, and also constituted an independent violation of the law punishing evasion of a police officer causing injury. Thus, the trial court did not violate section 654 by imposing a consecutive sentence for the count 7 conviction.
In a separate argument, appellant contends that his count 8 sentence for DUI causing injury violates section 654 because his aggregate term for committing that offense includes an 8-month enhancement for causing injury to more than one person (Veh. Code, § 23558). Appellant argues that this enhancement should have been stayed because appellant was subject to separate punishment for causing injury to each of the crash victims by virtue of his sentences for the substantive offenses of DUI causing injury (count 8) and the two manslaughters (counts 11 & 12). (Citing People v. McFarland (1989) 47 Cal.3d 798, 805, fn. 8, 254 Cal. Rptr. 331, 765 P.2d 493.) The People concede that this additional sentence enhancement should have been stayed under section 654. Accordingly, we will remand this case so the court can reconsider the proper sentence for the count 8 conviction.
Appellant contends that he is also entitled to a remand for a hearing affording him the opportunity to make a record of the kinds of information that will be relevant when he becomes eligible for a youth offender parole hearing pursuant to section 3051.
Appellant contends this case must be remanded because the trial court did not afford him the opportunity to present evidence about his current circumstances that may be relevant and admissible at his future youth offender parole hearing. The People dispute this contention, pointing out that appellant’s trial counsel filed a sentencing memorandum accompanied by extensive documentary evidence about appellant’s personal circumstances that was admitted without limitation at the sentencing hearing. However, in appellant’s view, the defense evidence submitted at that hearing addressed only current sentencing factors as opposed to the issues that will be relevant in 15 years’ time when his parole is conducted. Claiming that he is entitled to a remand so he can make a record of evidence made relevant by section 3051, appellant cites People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 282-284, 202 Cal. Rptr. 3d 496, 370 P.3d 1053 (Franklin).
In the present case, the People contend that appellant is not entitled to a remand for a “Franklin hearing” because—unlike the Franklin defendant—appellant was sentenced after section 3051 was enacted, and thus appellant did have the opportunity to present evidence regarding his youth related circumstances at the sentencing hearing. Section 3051 went into effect on January 1, 2014. (See Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 276.) Originally, section 3051 was limited to prisoners who were under 18 at the time of their offenses, but it was extended to include prisoners under the age of 23 in January 2015, more than a year before appellant was sentenced in this case.
Appellant takes the position that, although section 3051 was enacted before he was sentenced, it simply was not clear that he had a right to make a contemporaneous record of section 3051 evidence at his sentence hearing until Franklin was decided a few weeks after his sentencing hearing was completed. To support this argument, appellant cites People v. Jones (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 787, 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167 (Jones).
We agree with the Jones court’s assessment of the impact of Franklin. But we also recognize that Franklin and Jones challenged juvenile sentences on the ground that they were the functional equivalent of LWOPs. (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 276; Jones, supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 815.) In that context, constitutional considerations require extra assurance that the defendant has had a full and meaningful opportunity to create a record under section 3051. Here, by contrast, appellant has never questioned the constitutionality of his sentence. Thus, while appellant will have a statutory right to a youth offender parole hearing after serving 15 years of his sentence, that hearing is not constitutionally mandated. Neither party cites authority entitling an appellant to a remand for a Franklin hearing under the circumstances presented here.
Furthermore, in contrast to Jones, the record of appellant’s sentencing hearing does contain significant evidence regarding his personal characteristics, over 35 pages of exhibits that include letters of support from family and community organizations, program certificates, and a personalized letter from appellant’s social worker. Appellant insists that this evidence was submitted in order to address discretionary sentencing issues rather than his status as a youth offender who would qualify for a section 3051 hearing. However, appellant does not contend that he had other evidence that he was prevented from submitting or that he decided not to present because he was unaware of his right to do so.
Nevertheless, we conclude that, while a Franklin hearing is not constitutionally mandated in this case, Franklin explained the importance and scope of a section 3051 hearing applicable to all youthful offenders sentenced to long terms. That decision was not handed down until after appellant’s sentencing hearing. We have already concluded that a remand is appropriate to correct a sentencing error. Once the case is remanded for resentencing, the trial court also should conduct an inquiry under Franklin to determine whether the parties have been afforded a sufficient opportunity to make a record of evidence that will be relevant to appellant’s future youth offender parole hearing. If a sufficient opportunity was not afforded, the court should exercise its discretion to decide what additional evidence may be put into the record by both parties to comport with Franklin.
The parties agree that amended section 12022.5, subdivision (c) applies retroactively to appellant because: (1) the amendment went into effect while this appeal was pending (In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 48 Cal. Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948), and (2) the amendment reduces the punishment for a particular crime by giving trial courts discretion to impose a lower term (People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66, 75-78, 75 Cal. Rptr. 199, 450 P.2d 591). Nevertheless, the People contend that a remand is unnecessary because “although the new law is retroactive, it is apparent that the trial court would not dismiss or strike the firearm enhancements” in this case. We decline to speculate about this matter since a remand is appropriate on other grounds. Thus the trial court may determine whether to strike or dismiss the gun use enhancements.
The judgment is affirmed and this case is remanded with directions to (1) correct the sentencing error discussed herein, and (2) determine whether appellant was afforded a meaningful opportunity to make a record of evidence relevant to his future youth offender parole hearing, and if not, to hold a hearing allowing both parties to present additional evidence for this purpose. On remand, the trial court will also have the opportunity to exercise its discretion under section 12022.5, subdivision (c).
*. Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
1. Unless otherwise stated, subsequent references to an undesignated statute are to the Penal Code.
2. Appellant’s count 4 conviction was a lesser included offense of the count 4 charge of discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling (§ 264).
Appellant was also charged with two counts of murder (§ 187, subd. (a); counts 9,10), but a mistrial was declared as to those two counts after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

References: v. 
 § 23558
 v. 
 § 23558
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.