P. v. Santacruz 5/10/07 CA4/2

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2007 » P. v. Santacruz 5/10/07 CA4/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: E039277

Case Date: 08/15/2007

Preview:Filed 5/10/07 P. v.Santacruz CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS RUIZ SANTACRUZ et al., Defendants and Appellants. E039277 (Super.Ct.No. FVI021584) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Eric M. Nakata, Judge. Affirmed with directions. Edward J. Haggerty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jesus Ruiz Santacruz. Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Ignacio Erudiel Nieblas. Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General,

1

and David Delgado-Rucci, Bradley A. Weinreb and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION On May 6, 2005, defendants led sheriff's deputies and California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers on a high speed chase in two stolen vehicles, a Chevy Avalanche and a Dodge pickup truck. The chase spanned four Southern California counties from the Palmdale area to Fallbrook. Defendant Jesus Ruiz Santacruz was the driver of both vehicles; defendant Ignacio Erudiel Nieblas was the only passenger. Defendants were tried before the same jury and convicted of numerous offenses stemming from the incident, including carjacking, unlawful driving, receiving a stolen vehicle, and child abuse, two counts of felony evading, and three counts of assault with a deadly weapon. The prosecution's theory of liability was that each defendant either directly perpetrated or aided and abetted the other in the commission of the crimes. Santacruz was sentenced to 17 years 4 months in prison. Nieblas admitted a prison prior, and received a sentence of 18 years 8 months. Defendants appeal, and Nieblas joins Santacruz's contentions. We consider each defendant's contentions to the extent they may benefit the other defendant. We remand the matter for resentencing in light of Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856] (Cunningham). In all other respects, we affirm the judgments.

2

II. SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS We first address Nieblas's claim that the court erroneously denied his two Faretta1 motions. The first motion was made shortly before jury selection began, and the second was made during jury selection. We conclude that both motions were properly denied. We next consider defendants' claims that insufficient evidence supports several of their convictions; that the jury was improperly instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine; and that the use of that doctrine violated their right to due process because it permits criminal liability to be based on ordinary negligence. We conclude that substantial evidence supports each of defendant's convictions. We agree that the jury was erroneously instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine; however, we find the error harmless, and we reject defendants' due process claims. Defendants further contend that their felony evading convictions in counts 4 and 7 were based on an impermissible "mandatory presumption" affecting the burden of proof on the "willful or wanton disregard" element of the offense. (Veh. Code,

Download P. v. Santacruz 5/10/07 CA4/2.pdf