Opinion ID: 783023
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Trial and the Sentencing

Text: 12 The Government brought eight charges against Jose, Leong, and Miguel. 6 Count 1 charged all three defendants with felony murder. Count 2 charged Miguel with using a firearm during a crime of violence. Counts 3 and 4 charged all three with attempted robbery. Count 5 charged all three with attempted burglary. Counts 6 and 7 charged Jose and Miguel with possession of an unregistered firearm. Lastly, Count 8 charged Miguel with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. 13 During pretrial conferences, the parties argued about Miguel's statement to the police. Miguel's counsel pointed out that Miguel's statement included different versions of the events. The district court ruled the statement admissible in transcript form if the Government could redact any portions prejudicial to the co-defendants (to avoid severance). 14 A jury convicted the three defendants after a trial. The defense focused on the inconsistency between the physical evidence from the scene, particularly the location of the shell casing, and the accounts of Calarruda, Tapaoan, and Afong. During opening statements, defense counsel told the jury to pay particular attention to what the physical evidence would tell them about this crime. Defense counsel asked the jury to focus on Calarruda's testimony. Counsel suggested that Calarruda and Tapaoan colluded with each other to blame the defendants for the shooting. The Government did not introduce Miguel's statement into evidence, and none of the defendants testified. 15 As defense counsel promised, substantial testimony focused on the physical evidence from the scene. Both sides used a scale diagram of the crime scene to locate both people and physical evidence. The shell casing was 114 feet from the cabin. The Government's expert testified that the rifle would eject the casing to the right of the shooter and the casing would travel approximately five to ten feet. From this testimony, the jury could infer that the shooter was more than one hundred feet from the cabin. 16 Calarruda's and Tapaoan's testimony placed themselves in the area where the police found the shell casing. They testified that Miguel and Jose were about forty feet from the cabin. Tapaoan, for example, testified that Miguel shot Latchum from thirty to forty feet away from the cabin. Therefore, the Government's own witnesses' testimony placed them, not Miguel or Jose, near where the physical evidence suggested the shooter was located. 17 During closing argument, Miguel's counsel started to argue that Calarruda might have fired the gun. The court determined that counsel did not have a good faith basis for the argument and precluded it. During the sidebar, the district court stated: I don't think there was any evidence before this court, at all, that anyone other than Mr. Miguel fired the gun. There just isn't a shred of evidence. The court also said that counsel had admitted that Miguel fired the gun in previous proceedings. 7 The court instructed the jury to disregard counsel's earlier argument and told the jury that there was no evidence before the court that Mr. Calarruda was the gunman. 18 The defendants requested lesser included offense instructions on second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. The court denied the request, noting that none of these crimes was a lesser included offense of felony murder. 19 The jury found Miguel guilty of Counts 1-5 and 7-8. It found Jose guilty of Counts 1 and 3-6. 20 During the trial, Miguel moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, for a judgment of acquittal, or for a mistrial, based on Apprendi. 8 Miguel argued that the jury, rather than the judge, must decide whether to try him as an adult because the transfer increased his maximum sentence from imprisonment until age twenty-three to life imprisonment. The district court denied Miguel's motion. The court rejected Miguel's interpretation of Apprendi, concluding that the case did not apply to transfer proceedings. 21 The district court sentenced Miguel to life imprisonment for the felony murder; to ten years for possession of an unregistered firearm and ten years for possession while under the influence, to run concurrently; to twenty years for using a firearm in a crime of violence, to run consecutively; and to a five-year term of supervised release. 9 In the use of a firearm count, the court departed upward from ten to twenty years to reach this sentence. 10 22 The court sentenced Jose to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment for felony murder and ten-years' imprisonment for possession of an unregistered firearm. Jose also received a five-year term of supervised release. Miguel and Jose timely appealed their convictions to this court.