From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Willie

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 25, 2008
No. B204131 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARREN CHARLES WILLIE, Defendant and Appellant. B204131 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division September 25, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gary R. Hahn, Judge. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA075613

Donald R. Tickle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MALLANO, P. J.

Darren Willie appeals from the judgment entered following remand for rehearing of his motion for a new trial on the ground of insufficient evidence, ordered by this court in People v. Willie (Feb. 22, 2007) B185736 [nonpub. opn.] (Willie I). Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and alternatively requests that we reduce his conviction of second degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Defendant originally appealed from a judgment entered following a jury trial in which, based on an incident that occurred on January 17, 2004, he was convicted of second degree murder with the personal use of a firearm that he intentionally discharged, causing death (count 1), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (count 2). Following the verdicts, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to three additional counts of illegal firearm possession (counts 3, 5, and 6) and one count of misdemeanor unlawful use of a driver’s license (count 4), all of which crimes occurred on February 25, 2004. At sentencing, the trial court found that defendant had sustained two prior felony convictions under the “Three Strikes” law and sentenced him to 70 years to life for murder (15 years to life, trebled under the Three Strikes law, plus 25 years for the firearm enhancement), with sentence on the remaining counts to be served concurrently. (Willie I, supra, B185736, at p. 2.)

In Willie I, we reversed the judgment on count 2 and ordered that it be dismissed because that count had been improperly filed for a third time following two dismissals. (Willie I, supra, B185736, at pp. 2, 5–8, 15.) But we rejected defendant’s arguments that a third filing invalidated count 1, that he was unduly prejudiced by evidence introduced in support of a gang allegation, that a jury instruction should have been modified, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. (Id. at pp. 2, 5–15.) Nevertheless, we found merit in defendant’s contention that the trial court failed to conduct an independent review in ruling on defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of insufficient evidence of second degree murder (the trial court appeared to have relied solely the jury’s verdict). Accordingly, we remanded the matter to permit the trial court to conduct a new hearing at which it would undertake an independent review of the evidence on defendant’s motion. (Id. at pp. 2, 13, 15–16.) Finally, we affirmed the judgment on counts 3 through 6. (Id. at pp. 2, 16.)

At the hearing on remand, defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of insufficient evidence of second degree murder was argued by the same counsel who were present at the original hearing. Relevant portions of the underlying facts of that conviction, as set forth in Willie I, are as follows:

“On the afternoon of January 17, 2004, Bobby Nash was fatally shot while on 101st Street in Los Angeles. Tito Mejia, age 16, testified that he was playing football with his 17-year-old friend, Ricky Harvey, and some other friends at the time of the shooting. At one point, Mejia saw about eight African-American men standing nearby, screaming insults at each other. One of the men, Nash, threw a punch, hitting the other man, defendant, in the face. (Mejia identified defendant from a six-pack photo lineup, although at trial he testified that he was not sure of his prior identification.) Mejia continued that after the punch, ‘[t]hey both backed up from each other, and from my view looked like both of them were trying to pull a gun out, and the guy who did the firing [(defendant)] got it out first.’ In anticipation of the gunfire, Mejia got on the ground behind a car. From that vantage point he heard three to five shots fired in quick succession but did not see the shooting. (Mejia feared retaliation for testifying, and during a break in the proceedings ‘he broke down to hysterical crying.’)

“Detective Gerardo Pantoja testified that a few days after the shooting he spoke with Ricky Harvey. (Pantoja had earlier spoken with Mejia.) Harvey told Pantoja that he saw defendant and Nash, both of whom Harvey recognized from the neighborhood, argue with each other. Defendant’s brother approached and he and defendant ‘surrounded [Nash] like they were going to jump him.’ Next, ‘[Nash] punched [defendant] in the jaw, [defendant] pulled a gun from his waistband and shot [Nash] three times.’ Nash, whom Pantoja saw at the hospital, appeared to be about six feet one inch tall and 240 pounds, as indicated on Nash’s driver’s license. Defendant is about five feet eleven inches and 160 pounds.

In Harvey’s testimony before the jury, he denied having seen the shooting, having made a statement to the police, and having identified defendant as the shooter.

“After the shooting, a neighbor saw two men, one of whom had a gun in his hand, get into a car and drive away.

“A deputy medical examiner testified that Nash died from two gunshot wounds. One bullet, which entered the right side of Nash’s chest, was fired from a distance of greater than two feet. Given the path of the bullet, Nash’s arm was probably raised when the bullet was fired. The second gunshot entered the left groin area near the hip. Bullet fragments were recovered from Nash’s body and his clothing.

“Two bullet casings and one round of live ammunition were found at the scene on opposite sides of the street from each other. A criminalist determined that the two casings had been ejected from the same gun and that the two bullet fragments recovered from Nash’s body had been fired by the same gun, but the criminalist could not tell if a single gun was responsible for both the casings and the fragments, nor could the criminalist draw any conclusions regarding the association of the live round with the casings or the fragments.

“Gang expert Officer Samuel Murillo testified that defendant, his brother, and Nash were members of the ‘Q102’ gang, which is affiliated with the East Coast Crips. The members of the gang, whose primary activities include narcotics sales, robbery, and murder, often congregate in the area where the shooting occurred. [Fn. omitted.] Defendant and Nash were senior members of the gang, thus ‘Original Gangsters’ or ‘O.G.’s.’ If a gang member does not retaliate when he has been pushed or shoved, he will loose respect within the gang. This is true even if the assailant is a fellow O.G. In conducting an investigation immediately after the shooting, Murillo noticed about 15 members of the Q102 gang dressed in their gang colors. Based on this observation, Murillo concluded that some type of gang gathering had been going on, but he did not know the nature of the gathering.

“In defense, a retired gang officer testified that the circumstances of the shooting reflected an internal gang dispute, rather than an act committed for the benefit of the gang as a whole. ‘When gang members from the same gang have some kind of internal problem or personal problem with one another, normally they try to work it out with a fist fight. It doesn’t generate it into a killing. [¶] But then again, it would depend upon the circumstances.’” (Willie I, supra, B185736, at pp. 2–5.)

In defense counsel’s oral presentation at the hearing on remand, she asserted that the evidence did not support murder. Rather, defendant shot Nash in self-defense, requiring that the verdict be set aside or at least reduced to voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense or sudden quarrel/heat of passion. In support of this position, counsel noted that Nash was much larger than defendant, Nash initiated the physical assault, Mejia thought both men were going for their guns, and because both men were gang members it was reasonable to assume that both were armed. The prosecutor responded that the evidence was subject to a reasonable interpretation that defendant was the original aggressor when he and his brother surrounded Nash and that it was only after defendant pulled a gun, thereby raising the threat of serious bodily injury or death, that Nash reached for his waistband. Defense counsel replied that the evidence did not establish that defendant reached for his waistband or pulled a gun before Nash reached for his waistband; rather, the two reached for their waistbands at the same time.

As recounted in Willie I and quoted above, “Harvey told [Detective] Pantoja that he saw defendant and Nash . . . argue with each other. Defendant’s brother approached and he and defendant ‘surrounded [Nash] like they were going to jump him.’”

In making its ruling, the court stated that it had refreshed its recollection of the evidence the night before the hearing. The court continued that no gun was found on Nash’s body or near him, Mejia testified he thought defendant and Nash were going for their guns at the same time, defendant and his brother surrounded Nash, Nash responded by hitting defendant, and the confrontation then escalated when defendant drew his gun and shot Nash. Accordingly, concluded the court, there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict of murder. Defendant was thereafter sentenced to the same term as previously imposed on the murder conviction.

In making this pronouncement, the court misspoke and referred to first, rather than second degree murder.

DISCUSSION

Under Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 6, a new trial may be granted when the verdict is contrary to law or evidence. “On a motion for a new trial, a trial court must review the evidence independently, considering the proper weight to be afforded to the evidence and then deciding whether there is sufficient credible evidence to support the verdict. [Citation.]” (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 364.) “A trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial is so completely within that court’s discretion that a reviewing court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion. [Citation.]” (People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 1260–1261.)

In arguing that denial of his motion for a new trial constituted error, defendant sets forth interpretations of the record that could have been drawn by the trier of fact to reach verdicts of acquittal or voluntary manslaughter. But in conducting its independent review, the trial court was in a position (as was the jury) to weigh the credibility of the two eyewitnesses, one who made no mention of Nash reaching for his waistband and the other who testified with so much fear of retaliation that he broke down hysterically crying during a break in the proceedings. And despite assertions that in making its ruling the trial court failed to consider certain evidence (such as the defense gang expert’s opinion that gang members would not leave a gun at the scene of a crime), defendant has not shown that the court’s failure to refer to specific evidence that defendant considers supportive of his position affected the validity of the court’s finding that the murder verdict was not contrary to law or evidence.

Given the state of the evidence, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling, nor any reason why this court should reduce defendant’s conviction to voluntary manslaughter. Accordingly, defendant’s arguments must be rejected.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., WEISBERG, J.

Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

People v. Willie

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 25, 2008
No. B204131 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Willie

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DARREN CHARLES WILLIE, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Sep 25, 2008

Citations

No. B204131 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2008)