 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Lewis5/1/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Ronald Willis Lewis was convicted by jury of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 462, subd. (a)) and admitted suffering three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) within the meaning of the Three Strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) The trial court sentenced him to 40 years to life in state prison, consisting of 25 years to life pursuant to section 1170.12, plus 5 years for each of the prior conviction allegations, pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a). He appeals from the judgment, contending that the trial court erred in denying his Wheeler motions (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258) and alleges instructional error. We affirm.
FACTS
A passing motorist saw appellant climb over a fence next to the victim's house and called the police. They apprehended appellant as he was stepping off the front porch. The officers entered the house and saw that a screen had been removed from a partially open window. Two rooms were ransacked and a laptop computer had been placed on the kitchen counter. A sack on the kitchen floor contained property belonging to the victim.
A search of appellant yielded a pair of gloves, a money clip, several pins and a class ring. The jewelry was later identified as belonging to the victim. Due to his erratic behavior during his arrest, appellant was evaluated by mental health professionals while in jail. He was prescribed mood-stabilizing medications and placed on suicide watch.
DISCUSSION
Appellant is African-American. During voir dire, the prosecutor exercised six of her peremptory challenges to remove African-American jurors from the panel. Defense counsel brought two separate motions to dismiss the venire under People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 276-277, arguing that the jurors had been excused solely because of their ethnicity. Appellant challenges the exclusion of four prospective jurors, claiming they were excluded based on group bias. He also alleges that the trial court failed to fully evaluate the prosecution's reasons for exercising its peremptory challenges before denying the Wheeler motions.
It is a violation of the state and federal Constitutions to use peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors solely on the basis of a presumed group bias based on membership in a racial group. (People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1187; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277; Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 89.) African-Americans are a cognizable racial group. (Wheeler, at pp. 276-277.) A party who believes that peremptory challenges have been exercised on the basis of group bias must make a prima facie case of discrimination. The prosecution is required to state its reasons for exclusion and the trial court must then determine whether purposeful racial discrimination has been proved. (People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384.)
The defense made its first Wheeler motion after the prosecution exercised its fifth peremptory challenge of African-American jurors. At sidebar, the trial court noted that one African-American was seated in the box and another remained on the panel. The court ruled that the defense had made a prima facie case of discrimination and asked the prosecutor to state her reasons for excusing the first five African-American jurors. The court referred to e
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|