People v. Macias CA4/1 ( 2015 )

Filed 3/11/15 P. v. Macias CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064624
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS245331)
EDUARDO ALBERTO MACIAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C.
Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed as modified and remanded with directions.
Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland Assistant Attorney General,
Arlene A. Sevidal and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
This case arose out of crimes committed by a group of inmates─some of whom
were members of the Mexican Mafia prison gang─against a fellow inmate in a prison
yard. In an amended information (information), Eduardo Alberto Macias (the appellant
in the current appeal) and his two codefendants at trial─Lionel Alvidrez Quinteros and
Geronimo Polina1─were charged with three felony offenses: (1) conspiracy to commit
murder (count 1: Pen. Code,2 §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a)); (2) attempted murder
(count 2: §§ 187, subd. (a), 664); and (3) assault with a deadly weapon by a prisoner
(count 4: § 4501). As pertinent here, the information also alleged that Macias committed
each crime for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street
gang, within the meaning of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1); that he personally used a
deadly weapon within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(l) in committing the
offenses charged in counts 2 and 4; and that he had suffered three prior strike convictions
within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668.
During trial before a single jury─after Macias, Quinteros, and Polina rested and
while the prosecution was presenting the testimony of a rebuttal witness─Macias pulled
out a concealed razor blade and slashed his attorney on the cheek in the presence of the
1 Five codefendants were originally charged in this matter along with Macias:
Quinteros, Polina, Jose Manuel Garcia, Juan Gabriel Morones, and Francisco Daniel
Valencia. At some point Valencia pleaded guilty and Garcia and Morones's trial was
severed. The remaining defendants─Macias, Quinteros, and Polina─were jointly tried.
Neither Polina nor Quinteros is a party to this appeal.
2 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.
2
jury. The court individually questioned in camera the 12 jurors and three alternate jurors,
and then excused two jurors and replaced them with alternate jurors.
Quinteros, joined by Polina and Macias, moved for a mistrial based on the
slashing incident in the courtroom. The court denied the three codefendants' mistrial
motions. In denying Macias's mistrial motion, the court told Macias he had forfeited his
right to appointed counsel and he should not benefit from his attack on his attorney.
The jury found Macias guilty of all three charged offenses (conspiracy to commit
murder, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon by a prisoner) and found to
be true the gang enhancement allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) attached to each of those
three counts (counts 1, 2, 4) and the personal-weapon-use allegations.
In May 2013 Macias pleaded guilty to aggravated mayhem in People v. Macias
(Super. Ct. San Diego County, No. SCD235449) in connection with his attack on his
attorney during trial in the instant case.
Later, in a bifurcated proceeding, Macias admitted one of the prior strike
allegations. The court then sentenced Macias to an aggregate term of 50 years to life plus
29 years. The sentence consisted of an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for Polina's
count 1 conspiracy conviction, doubled to 50 years to life under the Three Strikes law
(§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12); plus a consecutive determinate upper term of 18 years
for his count 2 attempted murder conviction; plus a consecutive one-year term for the
count 2 personal-use-of-a-weapon enhancement; plus a consecutive 10-year term for the
count 2 gang enhancement. The court imposed, but stayed under section 654, the
3
sentence it imposed for Macias's count 4 aggravated assault conviction and the related
personal-use-of-a-weapon and gang enhancements.
Macias's contentions
Macias raises six contentions on appeal. First, he contends the judgment must be
reversed because the court violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and an
unbiased jury when it denied his motion for a mistrial following his courtroom
misconduct in slashing the face of his attorney in front of the jury.
Second, he contends the judgment must be reversed because the court erred and
violated his federal constitutional rights in ruling he had forfeited his right to counsel by
assaulting his counsel in front of the jury.
Third, Macias contends the judgment must be reversed because he was deprived of
his right to be either present or represented by counsel during the questioning of the jury
after his courtroom attack on his attorney.
Fourth, he contends the judgment must be reversed because he was deprived of his
federal constitutional right to a fair trial when "he was compelled to appear in front of the
jury in jail clothing."
Fifth, he contends the judgment must be reversed because cumulative error
deprived him of his federal constitutional right to due process.
Last, Macias contends the 29-year sentence the court imposed for his count 2
attempted murder conviction and the related sentence enhancements "must be stricken"
under section 654. The Attorney General acknowledges Macias's count 2 sentence
should be stayed under section 654 because Macias was punished separately for his count
4
1 conviction of conspiracy to murder Ortiz and "both crimes had the same objective and
intent."
We modify the judgment to stay under section 654 the 29-year sentence imposed
for Macias's count 2 attempted murder conviction and the related count 2 sentence
enhancements. We affirm the judgment as modified and remand the matter to the
superior court with directions to correct the abstract of judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The People's Case
Victoriano "Cyco" Ortiz testified both as the victim of the July 5, 2010 attack in
the prison yard at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (Donovan) that is the
subject of this case, and as an expert on the Mexican Mafia. Ortiz, who had been a
member of the Brole gang in Brawley, California, became an associate3 in the Mexican
Mafia. He was incarcerated at Donovan after he was convicted in 2010 of committing
an assault in El Centro for the benefit of the Mexican Mafia.
Ortiz indicated that the Mexican Mafia exerts its control inside California prisons
and jails and over Southern California Hispanic street gangs. Members of Hispanic street
gangs in Southern California are called "Southsiders." The Mexican Mafia is in charge
of the Southsiders. A "Sureño" is a full-fledged "soldier" who is very loyal to the
Mexican Mafia. To become a Sureño one must assault somebody in prison or do
something that shows his alliance with, and respect for, the Mexican Mafia.
3 Ortiz testified that an associate is somebody who has been "validated" and has "a
lot of authority and power . . . for the Mexican Mafia."
5
Ortiz testified that the Mexican Mafia communicates to inmates through letters.
These letters give inmates authority to "run" the prisons, collect "taxes," and "do
whatever has to be done" inside the prisons. To show their respect to the Mexican Mafia,
Southsiders must pay "taxes" to the Mexican Mafia in the amount of one-third of all of
the proceeds of their illegal activity.
Ortiz also testified that if a street gang fails to pay their respects to the Mexican
Mafia, they can get "greenlighted," which means the members of the gang will be beaten
or stabbed when they arrive in prison depending on how "hard" the greenlight is.
According to Ortiz, members of the Mexican Mafia commit "[a]ssaults, stabbings,
shootings, kidnappings, torture, anything that they have to" in order to "get the point
across that the Mexican Mafia is and will be respected." The members commit crimes to
collect their money, often by extortion. In the prison, a module contains about 20 cells,
and each module is run by a "key holder" who is in charge of collecting the taxes for the
Mexican Mafia.
Ortiz testified that when he arrived at Donovan, he believed he had permission to
run Donovan based on verbal and written authority that Mexican Mafia member Richard
Buchanan gave him. Ortiz established a "mesa" (his team or executive committee) with
three other Donovan inmates: Polina ("Blue"), Isaac ("Lazy") Ballesteros, and Manuel
("Stomper") Gonzalez. Before July 2, 2010, Macias─a Sureño whom Ortiz knew as
"Funny Boy"─was also loyal to Ortiz. Ortiz testified that Quinteros (one of Macias's
codefendants at trial), a Southsider whom Ortiz knew as "Chuco," wanted to become
loyal to Ortiz's mesa and told Ortiz he would do whatever Ortiz asked.
6
According to Ortiz, a power struggle arose when another inmate, "Casper from
Fallbrook,"4 failed to recognize Ortiz's authority. In an attempt to "come together in
agreement," Ortiz tried sending written "kites"5 to Casper indicating that Buchanan had
given him authority to run the prison. Ortiz directed Ballesteros to write a kite telling
Casper that he and Ortiz needed to "settle up," but Casper refused to do so.
On July 2, 2010, through a vent, Ortiz overheard a Mexican Mafia associate
named Jose Manuel "Crazy Joe" Garcia, who sided with Casper, tell Ballesteros to stab or
slice Ortiz and Gonzalez with razor blades. Ortiz testified that he also read some kites
sent to Ballesteros stating that Crazy Joe (Garcia) said Ortiz and Stomper (Gonzalez)
were supposed to get "hit on the next available yard, no exceptions." These kites noted
that Ortiz, Polina, Ballesteros, and Gonzalez were "in the hat," which meant they had
"mess[ed] up" and were "done." The word "whacked," which means killed, was used in
one of the kites. Ortiz testified he was angry that Ballesteros, a member of his mesa, was
being ordered to stab him.
Investigators at Donovan received information that Garcia was going to conduct
some criminal activity for the Mexican Mafia at the prison. Unbeknownst to the inmates,
microphones were placed in the plumbing chase between two cells where Garcia was
4 Pablo ("Casper") Franco.
5 Ortiz testified that "kites" (or "willas") are "small handwritten notes that [inmates]
usually fold and roll up real small the size of a capsule. [U]sually an inmate can sneak it
under his tongue, in his tooth, in his gums, or if he has to, in his private areas or his toes,
or anywhere, because he gets searched." He stated that kites are "confidential
communications between inmates" that "generally talk about either Mexican Mafia or
prison politics."
7
located so that law enforcement officers could glean intelligence. In one recorded
conversation, which was played for the jury, Garcia dictated a kite to his cellmate, Juan
Morones, giving a direct order for the stabbing of Ortiz.
Knowing from the kites that he might get stabbed, Ortiz went outside to the prison
yard on July 5, 2010, at approximately 12:20 p.m., and walked laps with Polina. Ortiz
testified that as he walked and talked with Polina, he observed other inmates walking
towards a corner near a toilet stall. Polina then swung his hand at Ortiz's face, and Ortiz
raised his right hand to block the strike and protect his face. Ortiz felt something cutting
his hand.
Ortiz also testified that Macias approached him and slashed his head with a razor
while Quinteros punched him and held him down.6 Another inmate named "Cobra"
Valencia also assaulted Ortiz. As correctional officers fired shots of increasing lethality,
Ortiz's attackers continued to assault him by punching, kicking, and stabbing him, and
banging his head against a wall while he tried to cover up and defend himself. As a result
of the razor slashes, Ortiz suffered cuts to his head, back, and hand. Macias flushed the
razor down the toilet. A video of the incident was played for the jury.
B. The Defense
Macias testified that Ortiz was angry with him because a girl named Priscilla liked
him. To antagonize Ortiz, Macias took a picture of himself kissing Priscilla and sent it to
Ortiz. Macias testified he was not involved in a conspiracy to murder Ortiz, and he
6 Gonzalez was attacked at the same time as Ortiz.
8
denied receiving instructions to murder him. He claimed he never received a kite about
"putting a hit" on Ortiz.
Macias also testified he and Ortiz argued because Macias was upset that Ortiz had
made jokes about the fact that he had been incarcerated for beating up a person in a
wheelchair. Following this argument, Macias began carrying a razor in his mouth when
he went to the prison yard. On the day of the incident, Macias saw Ortiz walking with
Macias's friend, Polina. Macias testified that Ortiz took a "cheap shot" at Polina by
punching him from the side. Macias removed the razor from his mouth and began
"slicing" Ortiz. Macias also testified he had no intent to kill Ortiz, as the razor was small
and flimsy. He stated that he flushed the razor down the toilet. He also testified that
Quinteros tried to break up the fight.
Several other inmates testified in Macias's defense. Ortiz's cellmate, Angel
Cuadra, testified that Ortiz said he was going to attack Polina. Martin Madrid testified
that Ortiz told him Macias had taken his girlfriend, Priscilla, from him. Another of
Ortiz's cellmates, Anthony Barrera, testified that Ortiz carried razor blades and was angry
with Macias because of a woman. "Stomper" Gonzalez testified he witnessed the fight in
the yard between Ortiz and Polina. He stated that Ortiz started the fight by hitting Polina.
Gonzalez stated he also became involved in a mutual fight. Gonzalez also testified he did
not believe a hit was put on him.
9
DISCUSSION
I. DENIAL OF MACIAS'S MISTRIAL MOTION FOLLOWING HIS
COURTROOM ATTACK ON HIS ATTORNEY
Macias first contends the judgment must be reversed because the court violated his
federal constitutional rights to due process and an unbiased jury when it denied his
motion for a mistrial following his courtroom misconduct in slashing the face of his
attorney in front of the jury. We reject this contention.
A. Background
1. Macias's courtroom assault on his attorney and related proceedings that day
On December 13, 2012, after Quinteros, Macias, and Polina rested their cases, the
prosecution recalled Ignacio Bravo, a correctional officer at Donovan, as its first rebuttal
witness. As Officer Bravo was testifying, Macias slashed his attorney, William
Burgener, in the face with a small razor blade he had concealed in his mouth. Burgener
jumped up and exclaimed, "What the fuck did you do to me?" Macias tried to stand up
but could not do so because he was bolted down. A bailiff said, "Call first aid." The
bailiffs then jumped on Macias. The court said, "Everybody stay right there."
Immediately thereafter, Macias stated, "It didn't have nothing to do with you guys.
Officer Bravo—" The court silenced him, stating, "Mr. Macias, you need to keep quiet."
The jurors left the courtroom after the defendants were removed from the courtroom.
Burgener was taken to the hospital where he received stitches for his wound.
Outside the presence of the jury, in another courtroom, the trial judge summarized
what had occurred:
10
"So we were in a different department, Department 25, when Officer
Bravo was about to testify as a rebuttal witness for the prosecution.
He was the last witness before we were going to instruct the jurors.
And as soon as Mr. Bravo took the stand, Mr. Macias apparently had
secreted a small─very small razor blade that had some cloth
wrapped around the bottom of it, so it was probably maybe a quarter
of an inch point, maybe, or maybe three-eighths of an inch point.
And he slashed─I guess it was in his mouth. He took it out of his
mouth and he slashed Mr. Burgener with it.
"[Macias] was I bolted to the floor so he couldn't get up. And so
then Mr. Burgener jumped up and yelled and had blood on his face,
and apparently, according to Agent Epperson,7 had a pretty deep cut
on his jawline on his right side.
"So Mr. Burgener had to go to the hospital because it looks like he
might have to have stitches. He definitely needs to have that wound
thoroughly cleaned. And he's no longer here today.
"But we have a jury that we swore in and listened to the entire
proceedings and we were about to instruct. And so since Mr.
Burgener is at the hospital and cannot be here, I wanted to have Mr.
Macias represented when we decide what kind of--how we are going
to proceed from here.
"And so that's why you are here, Mr. Cline.[8] And so now I don't
know if you had an opportunity to talk to [Polina's attorney] or
[Quinteros's attorney], but I kind of wanted to get an idea of what
they think should happen next in their judgment."
At that point, Quinteros's counsel made a motion for mistrial, stating that
defendant Macias's conduct in the courtroom involved "the same thing that all three
defendants are charged with in this case." Polina's attorney stated he was leaning toward
7 Steve Epperson, a special agent at the Special Service Unit of the California
Department of Corrections, had previously testified during the People's case-in-chief.
Agent Epperson, who was in the courtroom at the time Macias slashed Burgener with the
razor blade, assisted Burgener in the courtroom before he was taken to the hospital.
8 Attorney Stephen Cline made a special appearance on behalf of Macias.
11
a mistrial motion, but first he needed to speak with his client. When Quinteros's attorney
pointed out that Macias had been in the courtroom out of the presence of the jury for 30
minutes before he attacked his attorney, the prosecutor responded that Macias attacked
Burgener "[o]nly after the jury was brought in[ and] only when the witness took the
stand," which suggested Macias slashed his attorney "for the benefit of the jury."
Indicating that the court needed to speak with Macias's attorney to determine
whether he wanted to "conflict out," the prosecutor stated that Macias should not benefit
from his conduct. The prosecutor suggested Macias would be entitled to a mistrial if
Burgener decided he could not continue as Macias's trial counsel because "no one else is
ready to represent him at this time." The prosecutor also suggested that the court
question the jurors to determine whether they could be fair and that it draft a special jury
instruction indicating Macias's conduct could not be used against Quinteros and Polina.
After further discussion, the prosecutor told the court he was going to "change
[his] position," noting that he had consulted with a senior deputy attorney general, and he
believed "Polina and [Quinteros] have a built in reversal issue because of the horrific act
done by Macias." The court noted that the jury had witnessed a "slash attack" that was
potentially traumatizing and upsetting for them. Stating that "we're asking a lot" of the
jurors by asking them to "forget what [they] saw" and deliberate, the court commented
that "we're probably going to do the mistrial route as to [Polina and Quinteros]."
After a recess, Polina's attorney indicated that he had conferred with Polina and
that they "wish[ed] to continue on with the trial and finish it up." Quinteros's counsel,
however, requested that the court declare a mistrial. Cline, the attorney specially
12
appearing for Macias, stated he thought a mistrial "would be appropriate under the
circumstances," but he would "defer to the court." In response, the prosecutor suggested
that the court send the jury home to allow the parties to conduct research regarding the
issue.
Noting that it also wished to hear from Macias's counsel, Burgener, the court
declared a recess.
The court brought the jurors back into the courtroom and gave the following
admonishment:
"First of all, I want to apologize for you[r] having to witness what
some of you witnessed. And I also want to apologize for the
inconvenience of having you all interviewed because an alleged
crime occurred in your presence, and so you were witnesses to that
alleged crime, so you were interviewed as witnesses.
"Now, I've been doing criminal cases, either as a lawyer or as a
judge, for 30 years, and this is the first time something like this has
ever happened, and so I think all--and there are countervailing
constitutional rights at play here for defendants, for the prosecutor,
and so most of us have not experienced something like this either, so
I think we all just need to--the lawyers need to all call time out and
do a little research and try to figure out how we should proceed.
"So what that means for you, is that we'd like you to return
tomorrow morning at 10:00, and we're going to have a little
conference between 9:30 and 10:00 with the lawyers, and then we're
going to try to figure out what our next step is. So it may be that
we're going forward and doing closing argument. It may be that we
are declaring a mistrial and you'll all be excused. But before we
figure out what the answer to some of those questions are, we need
to have a little time to research it. Okay.
"So now this is going to be the hardest part of the next 22 hours, is
that you are not to form or express an opinion about this case, you're
not to discuss it among yourselves or with others, so that's really
important, because I know that this incident is going to be on the
13
news, and so if you can avoid watching the news, that would be
great. It's also going to be in the paper, so please do not read a
newspaper article about it, and please do not discuss it with your
loved ones. Just say I can't talk about it until the trial is over.
"And I appreciate your work on this case. We're actually, before this
happened, we were making very good progress, and we were going
to be doing closing argument, some today and some on Friday.
"So we're actually way, way ahead of schedule. And so, I mean, we
still have a little more time to dedicate to this case, like we told you.
"So anyway, so tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock in Department
25. Not here. This is our normal department, but that department is
a little bit bigger and it accommodates everybody a little better.
"So you're ordered to appear tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock
outside Department 25. And like I said, I know it's going to be
really hard to compartmentalize this, but I'm going to ask you do
that. And if we do go forward with argument and deliberations, that
you not let what happened in the courtroom affect what you think the
evidence does or does not show about what happened at Donovan.
"So what happened at Donovan is what you're charged with
deciding, not what happened in our courtroom. Okay. [¶] Alright.
Thank you very much. And you are excused for the day." (Italics
added.)
Outside the presence of the jury, attorney Cline represented to the court that
Burgener's wound did not appear to be life threatening and he was being evaluated by a
plastic surgeon. Cline also stated that Burgener believed he had a conflict with Macias
and he could not effectively represent him. The court then adjourned the hearing to give
the parties time to conduct research.
2. The court's in camera interviews of the jurors and alternate jurors
The following day, December 14, the prosecution filed an opposition to the
defense motion for mistrial. The prosecution urged the court, before deciding whether a
14
mistrial should be declared, to inquire of the jurors whether they could "put the incident
aside and decide this case solely on the facts as presented [at] trial and not be influenced
by [Macias's] conduct." The prosecution argued that Macias's attack on his attorney
warranted his removal from the courtroom, and that by his actions he had forfeited his
right to appointed counsel if Burgener was unable to continue representing him.
At the follow-up hearing that day, outside the presence of the jury, attorney
Burgener told the court he was prepared to go forward with closing arguments on behalf
of Macias. In response to the court's inquiry, the prosecutor informed the court that any
prosecution of Macias for his courtroom behavior would be handled by the Attorney
General's Office. The prosecutor argued that the incident in the courtroom did not
necessarily create a conflict between Burgener and Macias and that it was "allowable and
appropriate" for Burgener to continue representing Macias.
The trial court then indicated it believed Burgener had an actual conflict with
Macias, notwithstanding Burgener's willingness to continue with the trial, and despite the
prosecutor's argument to the contrary. Cline, who again was specially appearing on
behalf of Macias, told the court he also believed that an actual conflict existed between
Burgener and Macias and then represented that Macias did not believe he could work
with Burgener. Burgener reiterated that he was "happy to go forward" despite the fact he
had received several fine stitches along his jawline.
15
The court then held an in camera Marsden9 hearing with Macias, Burgener, and
Cline to determine whether Burgener should continue representing Macias. Following
the hearing, the court relieved Burgener as Macias's counsel. The court also found that
Macias had forfeited his right to appointed counsel, indicating that Macias should not
benefit from his own wrongdoing. The court appointed Cline as Macias's standby
counsel. The court then stated it would conduct an in camera hearing with each
individual juror to determine whether he or she could be fair and impartial, and then it
would address any mistrial motions by the defendants.
During the in camera hearing, the court, with counsel present, individually and
privately questioned each of the 12 jurors and three alternate jurors outside the presence
of the defendants and the other jurors. The court generally asked each juror four
questions: (1) whether the juror could put aside what the juror saw, and fairly and
impartially evaluate the evidence; (2) whether the juror could not let what the juror saw
affect how he or she looked at Quinteros and Polina, given that neither of these
defendants was involved in the incident; (3) whether the juror could fairly and impartially
set aside what he or she saw with regard to defendant Macias and decide the charges
based on what Macias allegedly did on the date of the charged incident; and (4) whether
the juror was interviewed by the sheriff.
As pertinent here, jurors Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7 through 15 indicated that they were
able to put aside their observations of the Macias incident and fairly and impartially
9 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
16
evaluate the evidence and that the incident would not influence how they viewed the
evidence against Quinteros, Polina, and Macias.
Juror No. 2, when asked the first question, stated: "My feeling is yes, but I think if
once we adjourn to go through the case, we'll be doing a lot of talking." The court
indicated that the conversation should not be about what happened in court between
Macias and Burgener, and juror No. 2 replied, "I understand." When the court asked
juror No. 2 whether he could abide by an instruction not to consider what had happened
in court, he indicated he could do so. Juror No. 2 then indicated he would "certainly try"
to not let the incident affect his deliberations with regard to Quinteros and Polina, but
indicated that "there's got to be an effect" and noted that he observed "a young man that
had a very bad temper." The court asked juror No. 2 whether─as to Macias─he could set
aside what happened in court and decide the case on what was said on the witness stand.
Juror No. 2 replied, "Yes, we could go through our notes and tally it up and figure what's
correct."
Jurors Nos. 5 and 6 indicated they did not believe they could be fair and impartial
after observing Macias's conduct. The court excused those jurors and replaced them with
alternate jurors.
a. Quinteros's mistrial motion; Macias's and Polina's joinders, and Polina's
motion to sever
Following the in camera interviews of the jurors, and out of the presence of the
jury, Quinteros moved for a mistrial based on the slashing incident in the courtroom.
Quinteros's counsel argued that Macias, by cutting his attorney with a razor in the
17
courtroom, painted Quinteros and Polina in a bad light, although they were not involved
in that incident. He also indicated the Macias incident undermined Quinteros's trial
defense of downplaying Ortiz's injuries. Quinteros's counsel also argued the jurors could
not put the courtroom incident aside even if they said they could.
Polina and Macias joined Quinteros's mistrial motion. Polina also moved for
severance of his trial.
The court noted that 13 of the 15 jurors interviewed said they could be fair and
impartial and could set aside what happened, while the two who said they could not were
excused. The court stated it did not see how the Macias incident undercut any argument
Quinteros intended to make as to the severity of Ortiz's injuries. The court also noted that
both Quinteros and Polina sat still during the Macias incident, they appeared to be
unaware that Macias was going to do what he did to Burgener, and the jurors indicated
they would not hold Macias's actions against Quinteros and Polina.
Following further discussion the court denied the motions for mistrial, reiterating
that the jurors indicated they could be fair and impartial and the court had to "take them
at their word" and "trust them." Specifically, as pertinent here, the court told Macias in
denying his mistrial motion:
"Like I said before, . . . you forfeited your right to counsel by
participating in that attack, and so that's why you're pro per now.
And you can't benefit from your attack. And . . . the benefit would
be that your case gets put off into the future, and then the witnesses
get killed or witnesses could go to prison or get transferred, and so
it's hard to reconstruct this case six months later.
18
"And then secondly, the law is very clear that when you attacked
your attorney in the way you did, in a very violent manner, . . . you
forfeit your right to have counsel sitting next to you.
"And then finally, I will say that we have to take the jurors at their
word. [W]e can speculate about what they're thinking, but when
they tell us [']we can be fair and impartial,['] we have to take them at
their word. So that's what I'm doing." (Italics added.)
The court also denied Polina's severance motion.
3. Special jury instructions
Prior to deliberations, the jury was instructed that it must decide the case based
only on the evidence presented in the courtroom. The court also gave the jury the
following special limiting instruction:
"Your task is deciding what occurred on July 5th, 2010, at R.J.
Donovan state prison. Once you agree . . . on what the facts are in
this case, you are to apply the law set forth in these instructions to
those facts.
"Ultimately, you will decide whether this case has been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. If it has not been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must find the defendants, or any individual
defendant against whom the case has not been proven, not guilty.
"In reaching your determination, you are not to consider anything
that you observed, or heard in the courtroom on December 13, 2012.
Those events should not enter into or affect your deliberations in any
way." (Italics added.)
4. Jury verdicts
As pertinent here, the jury, after about four and a half hours of deliberations, found
Macias guilty of all three charged offenses (conspiracy to commit murder, attempted
murder, and assault with a deadly weapon by a prisoner) and found to be true the gang
19
enhancement allegation attached to each of those three counts (counts 1, 2, 4) and the
personal-weapon-use allegations attached to counts 2 and 4.
B. Applicable Legal Principles
Under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
article I, section 16 of the California Constitution, "[a]n accused has a constitutional right
to a trial by an impartial jury. [Citations.] An impartial jury is one in which no member
has been improperly influenced [citations] and every member is '"capable and willing to
decide the case solely on the evidence before it."'" (In re Hamilton (1999) 20 Cal.4th
273, 293-294 (Hamilton).)
Although "[a] sitting juror's involuntary exposure to events outside the trial
evidence" (Hamilton, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 294-295) is not misconduct in the
pejorative sense, it may still lead to juror bias. (Ibid.) Such exposure gives rise to a
rebuttable presumption of prejudice. (People v. Danks (2004) 32 Cal.4th 269, 307.)
Whether an individual verdict must be overturned as a result of such juror
exposure or irregularity "'"'is resolved by reference to the substantial likelihood test, an
objective standard.'"'" (Hamilton, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 296.) In Hamilton, the
California Supreme Court held that "[a]ny presumption of prejudice is rebutted, and the
verdict will not be disturbed, if the entire record in the particular case, including the
nature of the misconduct or other event, and the surrounding circumstances, indicates
there is no reasonable probability of prejudice, i.e., no substantial likelihood that one or
more jurors were actually biased against the defendant." (Ibid.) In so holding, the high
court explained that "[t]he standard is a pragmatic one, mindful of the 'day-to-day
20
realities of courtroom life' [citation] and of society's strong competing interest in the
stability of criminal verdicts [citations]. It is 'virtually impossible to shield jurors from
every contact or influence that might theoretically affect their vote.' [Citation.]
Moreover, the jury is a 'fundamentally human' institution; the unavoidable fact that jurors
bring diverse backgrounds, philosophies, and personalities into the jury room is both the
strength and the weakness of the institution. [Citation.] '[T]he criminal justice system
must not be rendered impotent in quest of an ever-elusive perfection. . . . [Jurors] are
imbued with human frailties as well as virtues. If the system is to function at all, we must
tolerate a certain amount of imperfection short of actual bias.'" (Ibid., italics added.)
In People v. Cissna (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Cissna), this court explained
that "[w]hen . . . juror misconduct arises from a juror's receipt of extraneous information,
juror bias can be inherent or circumstantial. [Citations.] Under the inherent bias test, the
court considers whether the 'extraneous material, judged objectively, is inherently and
substantially likely to have influenced the juror.' [Citations.] Even when the extraneous
information is not so prejudicial, in and of itself, as to cause inherent bias, under the
circumstantial bias test the court must examine the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the misconduct to determine whether a substantial likelihood of actual bias
nonetheless arose. [Citations.] The judgment must be set aside if the court finds
prejudice under either the inherent or circumstantial bias test." (Id. at pp. 1116-1117,
italics added.)
21
1. Standard of review
Generally, "[w]e review the denial of a motion for mistrial under the deferential
abuse of discretion standard." (People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 953, disapproved on
other grounds in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22.) The Cox court
explained that "'"[a] mistrial should be granted if the court is apprised of prejudice that it
judges incurable by admonition or instruction. [Citation.] Whether a particular incident
is incurably prejudicial is by its nature a speculative matter, and the trial court is vested
with considerable discretion in ruling on mistrial motions.'''" (Cox, at p. 953.).)
We review the legal correctness of the court's ruling, not the court's reasoning.
(People v. Zapien (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929, 976.)
C. Analysis
Macias asserts his courtroom attack on his attorney in the presence of the jury "did
not lead to the relinquishment of his rights to due process and a fair trial, which includes
his right to a fair and unbiased jury." In support of his claim that the court erred and
violated these federal constitutional rights when it denied his motion for a
mistrial─which, as noted, was based on his claim that his attack on his attorney likely
prejudiced the jury against him─Macias asserts the court "applied the wrong standard
when [it] concluded about the jurors, 'I have to trust them at their word'" when they said
they could be fair and impartial after the attack. He also asserts the court "refused to
even consider whether there should be a mistrial, because . . . the court felt that would
cause [him] to benefit from his misconduct." Macias further asserts that he "is unaware
of any authority for the proposition that his in-court misconduct can cause a forfeiture or
22
waiver of [these] most fundamental of constitutional rights." These assertions are
unavailing.
In denying Macias's mistrial motion, as discussed in greater detail, ante, the court
explained to Macias that, "when you attacked your attorney in the way you did, in a very
violent manner, . . . you forfeit[ed] your right to . . . counsel," and "you can't benefit from
your attack." (Italics added.) The court also told Macias, "we have to take the jurors at
their word . . . when they tell us [']we can be fair and impartial.[']"
As already noted, we review the legal correctness of the court's ruling, not the
court's reasoning. (People v. Zapien, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 976.)
Here, we conclude the court properly denied Macias's mistrial motion and did not
violate his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, including his right to a fair
and unbiased jury. The California Supreme Court repeatedly has held that, as a matter of
policy, a defendant who commits an act of violence against his attorney in the presence of
a jury is not permitted to profit from his own misconduct and may not complain on
appeal about the possible effect on jurors of his own misconduct. (People v. Huggins
(2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 201 (Huggins); People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970,
1030 (Lewis and Oliver).)
In Huggins, the defendant struck one of his two defense attorneys in front of the
jury, knocking her to the ground and causing the jurors to react in alarm. (Huggins,
supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 200-201.) Following his assault on counsel, the defendant
unsuccessfully requested that the trial court allow him to voir dire the seated jurors on
whether each could remain impartial. (Ibid.) On appeal the defendant claimed the trial
23
court violated his federal and state constitutional rights to an impartial jury by denying
his motion to voir dire the jurors to determine whether his misconduct had prejudiced
them. (Ibid.) Quoting its prior policy statement in People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d
1127 (Williams) (hereafter sometimes Williams policy), the Supreme Court rejected this
claim, stating:
"[W]e . . . noted [in Williams] that 'As a matter of policy, a defendant
is not permitted to profit from his own misconduct.' ([Williams,] at
p. 1156.) We adhere to that view here. Defendant may not
complain on appeal about the possible effect on jurors of his own
misbehavior after the jury has been sworn." (Huggins, supra, at p.
201, italics added.)
In Lewis and Oliver, which is virtually on point, both defendants claimed the trial
court erred and violated their rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the federal
Constitution by denying their motion for mistrial after they assaulted counsel in the
presence of the jury and thereby disrupted the prosecution's case. (Lewis and Oliver,
supra, 39 Cal.4th at pp. 1029-1030.) Again quoting its strong policy statement in
Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at page 1156, the Supreme Court rejected the defendants'
claims, stating:
"In [Williams, supra,] 44 Cal.3d 1127, we affirmed the judgment in
the face of a claim that disruptive courtroom conduct had prejudiced
the jury. [Citation.] 'As a matter of policy, a defendant is not
permitted to profit from his own misconduct.' (Id. at p. 1156.) We
adhere to that commonsense view here. Defendants may not
complain on appeal about the possible effect on jurors of their own
calculated misdeeds." (Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p.
1030, italics added.)
Lewis and Oliver and Huggins govern our decision here. Like the defendants in
those cases, Macias attacked his own counsel in the presence of the jury. Like the
24
defendant in Lewis and Oliver, he thereby disrupted the prosecution's presentation of
evidence and then used his courtroom misconduct as grounds for seeking a mistrial. "'As
a matter of policy, a defendant is not permitted to profit from his own misconduct.'"
(Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 1030; Huggins, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 201;
Williams, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 1156.) Under this strong and well-established Williams
policy prohibiting a defendant in a criminal case from profiting from his or her courtroom
misconduct, Macias could not disrupt courtroom proceedings by attacking his counsel
and then be permitted to successfully rely on his own courtroom misconduct and the
resulting disruption of the proceedings as grounds for a mistrial. (Lewis and Oliver, at p.
1030; Huggins, at p. 201; Williams, at p. 1156.) We observe that, here, the trial court
appropriately explained to Macias in denying his mistrial motion that "you can't benefit
from your attack" and "the benefit would be that your case gets put off into the future,
and then the witnesses get killed or witnesses could go to prison or get transferred, and so
it's hard to reconstruct this case six months later." It is self-evident that to grant a
defendant a mistrial in a criminal prosecution based on the defendant's courtroom attack
on his or her attorney in the presence of a jury would create a powerful incentive for
defendants to engage in such violence, particularly in gang cases such as the instant one,
in order to profit from such misconduct by derailing the judicial proceedings, obtaining a
new trial, and thereby delaying their prosecution. This court will not countenance such
an outcome.
In light of our decision to enforce the Williams policy disallowing a defendant in a
criminal case from profiting from his or her courtroom misconduct, we need not, and do
25
not, apply the inherent bias and circumstantial bias tests that this court applied in Cissna,
supra, 182 Cal.App.4th 1105 (discussed, ante). The need for such analysis is obviated by
the dispositive Williams policy that applies here and governs our determination as to this
issue.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude the court properly denied Macias's
mistrial motion and did not violate his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial,
including his right to a fair and unbiased jury.
II. FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Macias also contends the judgment must be reversed because the court erred and
violated his federal constitutional rights to counsel and due process in ruling just prior to
closing arguments that he had forfeited his right to counsel by assaulting his counsel in
front of the jury. We reject this contention.
A. Background
During the in camera Marsden hearing held on December 14, 2012, the day after
Macias slashed his attorney, the court told Macias:
"I'm not going to appoint a new attorney to represent you. I'm going
to find that you forfeited your right to an attorney, and so you're
going to represent yourself.
"The way it's going to go is we're going to have a hearing. Mr. Cline
is going to be your standby attorney. So like I said, if you act out or
act like a fool or something, and I have to take you out of the
courtroom, then Mr. Cline would sit there and represent your interest
in court, but he wouldn't be arguing—well, he would be arguing on
your behalf or he would be listening to what other people say.
Okay?
26
"So then . . . the rules are going to be that you don't talk unless I ask
you to speak. You don't just get to say whatever you want to say.
You can listen to what other people say in their closing argument.
And you're not going to shake your head and get all animated.
You're just going to sit there quietly.
"And then when it's your turn, you're going to get up and say what
you want—I mean, what you want within the purview of this case.
If you say things that are objectionable, [the prosecutor] is going to
object, and if I sustain it, then you can't say that anymore.
"If you don't behave yourself—you're not going to stand up. You're
going to be seated. But if you don't behave yourself, you start
cussing or trying to act like a hard guy, then you're going to be
removed from the courtroom, and Mr. Cline will step up to the
podium and say something, or say nothing, but he'll be there
representing your interests.
"Okay. So that's the way it's going to go." (Italics added.)
Later, the court told Macias in denying his mistrial motion:
"Like I said before, . . . you forfeited your right to counsel by
participating in that attack, and so that's why you're pro per now. . . .
"[T]he law is very clear that when you attacked your attorney in the
way you did, in a very violent manner, . . . you forfeit[ed] your right
to have counsel sitting next to you." (Italics added.)
B. Analysis
"Both the United States Constitution and the California Constitution provide the
right of a criminal defendant to have the assistance of counsel in his defense." (King v.
Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 929, 937 (King), citing U.S. Const., 6th & 14th
Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) "Because it is essential to a fair trial, the right to
counsel has long been considered 'fundamental.'" (King, at p. 933, citing Gideon v.
27
Wainwright (1963) 372 U.S. 335, 343.) However, "[d]espite the fundamental nature of
this right, it is not absolute." (King, at p. 933.)
Although the United States Supreme Court has never directly addressed forfeiture
through misconduct of the right to counsel, as the Attorney General points out, it has
upheld the forfeiture10 of a criminal defendant's trial-related constitutional rights, such as
the right to be present during trial, under certain circumstances involving serious
misconduct. For example, in Illinois v. Allen (1970) 397 U.S. 337 (Allen) the defendant
"argue[d] with the [trial] judge in a most abusive and disrespectful manner" (id. at p.
339), told the judge that "you're . . . going to be a corpse here" (id. at p. 340), and "tore
the file which his attorney had and threw the papers on the floor." (Ibid.) When the
defendant continued his abusive behavior after the judge warned him he would be
removed from the courtroom if he engaged in "[o]ne more outbreak," the judge ordered
the trial to proceed in the defendant's absence. (Id. at pp. 340-341.) Upholding the trial
court's expulsion of the defendant from the courtroom, the Supreme Court stated:
"Although mindful that courts must indulge every reasonable
presumption against the loss of constitutional rights, [citation], we
explicitly hold today that a defendant can lose his right to be present
at trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that he will be
removed if he continues his disruptive behavior, he nevertheless
insists on conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive,
and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with
him in the courtroom." (Allen, at p. 343, italics added.)
10 Unlike waiver, which is the intentional relinquishment of a known right,
"'forfeiture results in the loss of a right regardless of the defendant's knowledge thereof
and irrespective of whether the defendant intended to relinquish the right.'" (King, supra,
107 Cal.App.4th at p. 938, quoting United States v. Goldberg (3rd Cir. 1995) 67 F.3d
1092, 1100.)
28
Like the fundamental right to be present at trial, the Sixth Amendment right to
counsel also may be forfeited by a criminal defendant's serious misconduct that
endangers the safety of defense counsel, and the right to counsel may be forfeited in
certain circumstances even without a prior warning. For example, in King, supra, 107
Cal.App.4th 929, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether the defendant
had forfeited his right to counsel. (Id. at p. 934.) Based on evidence that the defendant
had engaged in a pattern of serious misconduct, violence, and threats of violence against
a succession of court-appointed attorneys, the trial court found the defendant had
forfeited his right to counsel. (Id. at pp. 934, 936.) The defendant sought writ relief in
the Court of Appeal, contending that, under Allen, supra, 397 U.S. 337, he was entitled to
both a warning and an opportunity to reclaim the right to counsel before he could be
deemed to have forfeited that right through misconduct. (King, at p. 941.)
The Court of Appeal in King, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th 929─observing that the
United States Supreme Court in Allen and Taylor v. United States (1973) 414 U.S. 1711"recognized that constitutional rights may be forfeited even absent a warning" (King, at
11 In Taylor, the United States Supreme Court rejected the defendant's contention
that his voluntary absence from trial could not be construed as an effective waiver of the
right to be present absent a showing that he knew or had been warned he had a right to be
present and the trial would continue in his absence. (Taylor v. United States, supra, 414
U.S. at p. 19.) The Supreme Court stated: "It is wholly incredible to suggest that
petitioner, who was at liberty on bail, had attended the opening session of his trial, and
had a duty to be present at the trial, [citation], entertained any doubts about his right to be
present at every stage of his trial. It seems equally incredible to us, as it did to the Court
of Appeals, 'that a defendant who flees from a courtroom in the midst of a trial—where
judge, jury, witnesses and lawyers are present and ready to continue—would not know
that as a consequence the trial could continue in his absence.'" (Id. at p. 20.)
29
pp. 940-941)─stated that Allen and Taylor, read together, "permit loss of a constitutional
right in certain circumstances based on misconduct, even without a prior warning."
(King, at p. 943, italics added.) The King court also explained that, "[i]n rare cases where
the misconduct is so serious that lesser measures are patently inadequate to protect
counsel, an accused may forfeit his right to counsel without employing the patently
inadequate lesser measures," such as a warning. (Id. at p. 934.) The Court of Appeal
reasoned that "[c]ourts cannot tolerate misconduct by a defendant that seeks to delay or
disrupt judicial proceedings. Even less tolerable is such conduct which additionally
endangers the safety of defense counsel or others. When a criminal defendant engages in
the most serious misconduct towards counsel, it is simply 'incredible' that the defendant
would not realize his right to counsel may be lost." (Id. at p. 943, italics added.)
Here, the record (discussed, ante) shows that Macias waited to slash his attorney
until after Macias testified in his own defense and the prosecution was presenting its first
rebuttal witness. The record supports a finding that Macias attacked his attorney with the
razor blade in the presence of the jury in order to create a clear conflict with his court-
appointed counsel, and thereby disrupt and delay the court proceedings. We agree with
the King court's rationale that "[c]ourts cannot tolerate misconduct by a defendant that
seeks to delay or disrupt judicial proceedings" (King, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at p. 943)
and that a defendant's serious misconduct that "endangers the safety of defense counsel
[is] [e]ven less tolerable." (Ibid.) This is one of those "rare cases where the misconduct
[was] so serious" (id. at p. 934) that the accused─Macias─forfeited his right to counsel
without the trial court's use of lesser measures, such as a warning. As previously noted,
30
Macias was already I-bolted to the floor when he slashed his attorney. Granting a
continuance to allow new appointed counsel to become familiar with the case would have
been akin to granting a mistrial in the sense that, as the trial court explained to Macias,
the benefit to Macias would have been that the "case gets put off into the future, and then
the witnesses get killed or witnesses could go to prison or get transferred, and so it's hard
to reconstruct this case six months later."
For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude the court properly found that Macias
forfeited his right to counsel by slashing his counsel in the presence of the jury.
III. EXCLUSION OF MACIAS FROM THE IN CAMERA QUESTIONING OF THE
JURORS FOLLOWING HIS COURTROOM ATTACK ON HIS ATTORNEY
Macias next contends the judgment must be reversed because he was deprived of
his federal constitutional right to be either present or represented by counsel during the
questioning of the jury after his courtroom attack on his attorney. We reject this
contention.
A. Background
During a morning hearing outside the presence of the jury on December 14,
2012─the day after Macias's courtroom attack on his attorney, Burgener─the court found
that a conflict existed between Burgener and Macias and then relieved Burgener as
Macias's counsel. As discussed, ante, the court then found Macias had forfeited his right
to counsel as he should not benefit from his own wrongdoing, but it appointed Stephen
Cline as Macias's "standby counsel."
31
Cline responded by telling the court: "[I]t's my understanding I'm going to be the
one sitting in there while you conduct this hearing, knowing absolutely nothing about this
case or what's transpired. So I think that if he's pro per, he's pro per. That puts us in a
very difficult position, because I don't know how I can act effectively on this issue if I
don't have any clue as to what has transpired in the case, quite frankly. [¶] And I'm
happy to sit in there, but I don't know anything about this case to effectively do anything
while I'm in there."
The court replied by telling Cline:
"Well, I think the bottom line is that what you know is all you need
to know. You know that we conducted a trial, that during the course
of the trial yesterday Mr. Macias attacked Mr. Burgener, and many
of the jurors witnessed that. A couple of the jurors have even
been—apparently have been interviewed by law enforcement. [¶]
And so those—that's all in play. And so, you know, it's a very
simple question. Can you[, the jurors,] be fair and impartial? Can
you put that aside and decide this case on what you heard in court,
not what you saw in court? And so I think that you can—you're a
very experienced attorney. You're one of the premier defense
attorneys in San Diego, and so I think that you're going to get up to
speed pretty fast, especially when you hear what questions are asked
by Mr. Puglia [Polina's counsel] and Mr. Guthrie [Quinteros's
counsel]."
The court also stated that, "for security reasons," Macias was not going to be in the
room with the jurors "one-on-one." The court added that, "[t]o have them staring face-to-
face with him after what they saw, and I don't think it's appropriate and it's not safe."
The court then conducted the in camera hearing with the 15 jurors and alternate
jurors. The prosecutor, a supervising deputy district attorney, Polina's and Quinteros's
attorneys, and Macias's standby counsel, Cline, were present; Macias, Polina, and
32
Quinteros were not present. Before individually questioning each juror and alternate
juror, and outside their presence, the court noted it would not be appropriate for the
attorneys to ask questions. The supervising district attorney asked whether the court
found that Macias, who was in propria persona, had forfeited his right to be present at the
hearing. The court responded:
"At this particular hearing, I'm doing that for security reasons, and
also I find that it would be very intimidating for a juror to sit here
and have them sit in close proximity to [Macias] while they're in
basically a vacant courtroom. We've already asked much of them to
actually come back after all this, after all they saw, and sit as jurors.
The court then individually questioned each juror and alternate juror outside the
presence of the other jurors and alternate jurors.
B. Applicable Legal Principles (Criminal Defendant's Right To Be Present at
Trial)
The California Supreme Court has explained that "'[a] criminal defendant's right to
be personally present at trial is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the federal Constitution, as well as by article I, section 15 of the California Constitution
and by sections 977 and 1043 of the California Penal Code. [Citations.] A defendant,
however, "does not have a right to be present at every hearing held in the course of a
trial." [Citation.] A defendant's presence is required if it "bears a reasonable and
substantial relation to his full opportunity to defend against the charges." [Citation.]'
[Citations.] 'Sections 977 and 1043 do not require the defendant's presence, or a written
waiver, unless that standard has been met. [Citations.]' [Citation.] 'The defendant must
33
show that any violation of this right resulted in prejudice or violated the defendant's right
to a fair and impartial trial.'" (People v. Wallace (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1032, 1052.)
1. Standard of review
"An appellate court applies the independent or de novo standard of review to a
trial court's exclusion of a criminal defendant from trial, either in whole or in part, insofar
as the trial court's decision entails a measurement of the facts against the law." (People v.
Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 741.)
C. Analysis
Macias complains that "[he] was involuntarily deprived of both his own personal
presence and that of counsel at the in camera hearings with jurors." He asserts that "[his]
presence at this hearing bore a very substantial relation to his ability to defend against the
charges"; and that "[he] was prevented, either by personal observation or through
counsel, from observing the jurors' reactions and body language, which is, generally, the
very basis for reviewing courts' deference to determinations of a juror's impartiality by a
trial judge." Thus, Macias maintains, "[b]ecause of his exclusion, [he] was given no
opportunity or ability to challenge the trial court's conclusions." These assertions are
unavailing.
For reasons discussed, ante, we have already concluded that the court properly
found that Macias forfeited his right to counsel by slashing his counsel in the presence of
the jury. Nevertheless, as noted, Macias's standby counsel, Cline, was present on
Macias's behalf (along with the prosecutor, the supervising deputy district attorney, and
34
Polina's and Quinteros's attorneys) during the court's questioning of the jurors and
alternate jurors.
Macias's contention that the judgment must be reversed because he was personally
excluded from the in camera proceeding is premised on his claim that he had a federal
constitutional right to be personally present. Macias, however, had no such right. In
United States v. Gagnon (1985) 470 U.S. 522 (Gagnon), a case in which four
codefendants were charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine, a juror expressed
concern that one of the four defendants had been sketching members of the jury during
trial. (Id. at p. 523.) After ordering the defendant to stop his sketching, the trial court
conducted an in camera hearing to ascertain whether the sketching had prejudiced the
juror against the defendant. (Ibid.) The defendant's counsel was present during the
hearing, but the defendant was not. (Id. at pp. 523-524.) Following the hearing, none of
the defendants moved to disqualify the juror who had witnessed the sketching. (Id. at p.
524.) On appeal, each defendant claimed the trial court's in camera discussion with the
juror in his absence violated (among other things) his right to be present at all stages of
the trial. (Id. at pp. 524-525.)
Rejecting that claim, the United States Supreme Court in Gagnon explained that
"'[t]he mere occurrence of an ex parte conversation between a trial judge and a juror does
not constitute a deprivation of any constitutional right. The defense has no constitutional
right to be present at every interaction between a judge and a juror, nor is there a
constitutional right to have a court reporter transcribe every such communication.'"
35
(Gagnon, supra, 470 U.S. at p. 526, quoting Rushen v. Spain (1983) 464 U.S. 114, 125-
126, last italics added.)
We conclude that Macias, like the defendants in Gagnon, had no federal
constitutional right to be personally present during the court's in camera questioning of
the jurors and alternate jurors. (Gagnon, supra, 470 U.S. at p. 526.) Accordingly, we
reject his contention that the judgment must be reversed because he was personally
excluded from that proceeding.
IV. JAIL CLOTHING
Macias also contends the judgment must be reversed because he was deprived of
his federal constitutional right to a fair trial when "he was compelled to appear in front of
the jury in jail clothing." We reject this contention.
A. Background
On Friday, December 14, 2012, the day after Macias attacked his attorney in the
courtroom with a razor blade, Macias appeared in court, outside the presence of the jury,
in his jail clothing. The court asked standby counsel, Cline, whether Macias had a shirt
he could wear in front of the jury, and Cline indicated that Macias did not have other
clothing. The following exchange then took place between the court and the bailiff
indicating there would be no delay in the proceedings:
"[The court]: Well, I'm not going to delay the proceedings because
he doesn't have clothes right now. I mean, he can't set up his own
error by committing an offense that he did, and then saying, ['Oh], I
don't have clothes now, so therefore I shouldn't be in trial.['] [¶] So
he's going to be in his greens, and they don't say county jail on them,
but just the shirt does not say county jail on the front. Does it say
county jail on the back?
36
"[The bailiff:] Yes, your Honor.
"[The court:] Well, as long as he sits down and doesn't move
forward, and then no one is going to see that. [¶] Okay. And so
maybe he can—maybe we can get some more clothes for him for
next week."
At the next court hearing, on Wednesday, December 19─outside the presence of
the jury─Macias again appeared in court in his jail attire. He informed the court that he
was "on disciplinary isolation" as a result of his assault on his attorney and he had not
been able to contact his family to have them bring him clothing. Shortly thereafter, the
court indicated it was not going to take a recess to give Macias time to get clothing and
then told Macias, "The clothes you were wearing were taken as evidence in the stabbing
of Mr. Burgener, and so that's why you don't have those clothes now." The court then
indicated it would instruct the jury not to consider the fact that Macias was not wearing
his "dress-out clothes."
Macias then made a motion for mistrial "on the same grounds, the clothes," which
the court denied, stating:
"I understand you're making a motion for mistrial. I'm going to deny
it. I guess the jurors have been told on prior occasion that you guys
were all in county jail. It's no secret to them. And so I don't think
it's that prejudicial for you on this day not to have clothes. [¶] I
mean, I guess to me if they can set aside the fact that you sliced your
attorney in front of them, and they said they could, and they can be
fair and impartial, I don't think that you[r] wearing green jail clothes
is going to influence them one way or another."
When the trial resumed, the court gave the following instruction to the jury:
"[Macias] is in green jail clothes rather than his normal collared shirt
and pants, and his clothes were taken during the course of the
37
investigation of what happened on December 13th, and so that's why
he's wearing jail clothes. [¶] And again, you're not to consider that
fact in your deliberations. And that has nothing to do with what
happened on July 5th, 2010, as we talked about many times."
B. Applicable Legal Principles
As a matter of federal constitutional due process and equal protection, "the State
cannot . . . compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed in identifiable
prison clothes . . . ." (Estelle v. Williams (1976) 425 U.S. 501, 512; People v. Taylor
(1982) 31 Cal.3d 488, 494.) The rule entitling a defendant to be tried in ordinary clothing
is designed to preserve the presumption of innocence. (People v. Taylor, at p. 494.) A
defendant's appearance in jail clothing "is a constant reminder to the jury that the
defendant is in custody, and tends to undercut the presumption of innocence by creating
an unacceptable risk that the jury will impermissibly consider this factor." (Ibid.)
Where the trial court compels a defendant to be tried in jail clothes, the reviewing
court applies the harmless error analysis of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18.
(People v. Taylor, supra, 31 Cal. 3d at pp. 499-500.) Under the Chapman harmless error
standard, "'before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be
able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (People v.
Taylor, at p. 499, quoting Chapman, at p. 24.)
C. Analysis
We first conclude the court erred and impermissibly infringed upon Macias's
federal constitutional rights to due process, a fair trial, and equal protection by refusing to
order a short continuance of the trial proceedings to provide Macias time to obtain more
38
civilian clothes after the clothes he was wearing at the time of his courtroom slashing
attack on his attorney were seized as evidence. (Estelle v. Williams, supra, 425 U.S. at p.
512; People v. Taylor, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 494.)
Thus, the issue we must decide is whether the federal constitutional error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the applicable Chapman harmless error
standard. (People v. Taylor, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 499.)
We conclude the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. We begin our analysis by noting the obvious: Macias's appearance in court in jail
clothes was a direct result of his criminal act of slashing his attorney's face in the
presence of the jury and the ensuing seizure of his civilian clothes as evidence of that
crime and his placement in disciplinary custodial isolation. As we have already
concluded, the record supports a finding that Macias attacked his attorney in order to
create a clear conflict with his court-appointed counsel, and thereby disrupt and delay the
trial proceedings. That attack also provided what Macias considered to be a legitimate
basis for claiming on appeal that the court should have granted his motion for mistrial, a
claim we have rejected.
Macias asserts that, "[w]hile [he] does not claim the evidence is insufficient, per
se, to support the verdicts, he did testify on his own behalf and explained to the jury that
he was not involved in a conspiracy and did not intend to commit murder."
Acknowledging that "he essentially admitted to participating in the assault on Ortiz" in
the prison yard, he asserts "[h]is defense was plausible" and suggests his appearance in
court in jail clothing "played [a] part in the jury's rejection of his defense."
39
However, as the court pointed out to Macias, it was no secret to the jury that he
was being held in county jail. It was also no secret to the jury that Macias was a prison
inmate when, as he acknowledged in his testimony, he participated in the prison yard
attack on Ortiz. Macias testified that, during that attack, he removed a razor from his
mouth and began "slicing" Ortiz. Furthermore, a video of the prison yard attack on Ortiz
was played for the jury, and Ortiz testified that the video accurately depicted the attack
about which he had already testified. Thus, the jury was well aware before Macias
appeared in court dressed in jail clothes that he was a prison inmate when he attacked
Ortiz, and that he was still in custody.
In addition, in People v. Taylor, supra, 31 Cal.3d 488, which Macias cites, the
Supreme Court observed that, although an instruction given by the trial court "inform[ed]
the jury not to be influenced by the fact of defendant's arrest or because he was charged
with a crime or brought to trial, there [was] no mention of the defendant's jail status nor
his jail clothing." (Id. at p. 501.) The People v. Taylor court concluded, "Thus, the
instruction did not dispel the prejudice." (Ibid.)
Here, however, the trial court did give an appropriate instruction to dispel any
prejudice that might have arisen as a result of Macias's wearing jail clothing in court
following his courtroom attack on his attorney. As already noted, the court instructed the
jury:
"[Macias] is in green jail clothes rather than his normal collared shirt
and pants, and his clothes were taken during the course of the
investigation of what happened on December 13th, and so that's why
he's wearing jail clothes. [¶] And again, you're not to consider that
fact in your deliberations. And that has nothing to do with what
40
happened on July 5th, 2010, as we talked about many times."
(Italics added.)
On the record before us, we are confidently able to conclude that the erroneous
infringement on Macias's right to appear in court in civilian clothing was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.
V. CLAIM OF CUMULATIVE ERROR
Next, Macias contends the judgment must be reversed because cumulative error
deprived him of his federal constitutional right to due process. We reject this contention.
A. Applicable legal principles
A series of trial errors, though harmless when considered independently, may in
some circumstances rise by accretion to the level of prejudicial, reversible error. (People
v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1009.) A defendant is entitled to a fair trial, but
not a perfect one. (Ibid.)
B. Analysis
Macias asserts that "[t]he combined effect of each of the errors in which [he] was
deprived of constitutional protection─his right to an unbiased jury, his right to counsel,
his right to be present at all stages of the trial, and his right to appear in civilian clothing
rather than in jail garb─cannot be found to be harmless."
We conclude Macias has failed to meet his burden of showing prejudicial
cumulative error. He has not shown he was denied a fair trial.
41
VI. COUNT 2 SENTENCING ERROR (§ 654)
Last, Macias contends the 29-year sentence the court imposed for his count 2
attempted murder convictions and the related sentence enhancements "must be stricken"
under section 654. The Attorney General acknowledges Macias's count 2 sentence
should be stayed under section 654 because Macias was punished separately for his count
1 conviction of conspiracy to murder Ortiz and "both crimes had the same objective and
intent." We conclude the judgment must be modified to stay under section 654 the
sentence imposed for Macias's count 2 conviction.
A. Background
As pertinent here, the court sentenced Macias to an indeterminate prison term of
50 years to life for his count 1conviction of conspiracy to commit murder, plus a
consecutive determinate upper term of 18 years for his count 2 attempted murder
conviction, plus a consecutive one-year term for the count 2 personal-use-of-a-weapon
enhancement; plus a consecutive 10-year term for the count 2 gang enhancement.
B. Applicable Legal Principles (§ 654)
Section 654, subdivision (a) provides in part:
"An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different
provisions of law shall be punished under the provision that provides
for the longest potential term of imprisonment, but in no case shall
the act or omission be punished under more than one provision."
Section 654 "precludes multiple punishment for a single act or omission, or an
indivisible course of conduct" (People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 591) and ensures
the defendant's punishment will be commensurate with his or her criminal culpability
42
(People v. Kramer (2002) 29 Cal.4th 720, 723). If a defendant suffers two convictions
and punishment for one is barred by section 654, "that section requires the sentence for
one conviction to be imposed, and the other imposed and then stayed." (Deloza, at pp.
591-592, italics added.)
Whether a course of conduct is indivisible for purposes of section 654 depends on
the intent and objective of the defendant, not the temporal proximity of the offenses.
(People v. Hicks (1993) 6 Cal.4th 784, 789.) Generally, if all the criminal acts were
incident to one objective, then punishment may be imposed only as to one of the offenses
committed. (People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507; People v. Garcia (1995)
32 Cal.App.4th 1756, 1781.)
C. Analysis
Macias correctly argues that the consecutive sentence the court imposed for his
count 2 attempted murder conviction and the related count 2 enhancements must be
stayed under section 654. Given the prohibition against multiple punishment in section
654, punishment for both conspiracy and an underlying substantive offense is
"impermissible when the conspiracy contemplated only the act[s] performed in the
substantive offense[s] [citations], or when the substantive offenses are the means by
which the conspiracy is carried out." (People v. Ramirez (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 603,
615; People v. Cavanaugh (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1178, 1182 ["To punish for a
conspiracy to commit illegal acts and for the illegal acts themselves violates the [section
654 prohibition against multiple punishments] if the conspiracy has no objective other
than the specific acts charged."].)
43
Here, as the Attorney General acknowledges, Macias's base sentence for his count
2 conviction of attempted murder for his act of attempting to murder Ortiz in the prison
yard must be stayed under section 654 because (1) he was sentenced to 50 years to life
for his count 1 conviction of conspiracy to commit murder, (2) his intent and objective in
committing both crimes was the same─to murder Ortiz─and, thus, (3) the section 654
prohibition against multiple punishment proscribes the imposition of additional
punishment for Macias's attempted murder conviction. (§ 654; People v. Ramirez, supra,
189 Cal.App.3d at p. 615; People v. Cavanaugh, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 1182).
Furthermore, both the consecutive one-year term for the count 2 personal-use-of-
a-weapon enhancement and the consecutive 10-year term for the count 2 gang
enhancement also must be stayed under section 654 because, "[w]here the base term of a
sentence is stayed under section 654, the attendant enhancements must also be stayed."
(People v. Bracamonte (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 704, 709, disapproved on other grounds
by People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1130, fn. 8.); 3 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.
Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Punishment, § 271, p. 429 ["The stay of a sentence
automatically stays a sentence enhancement imposed with it, because the enhancement
cannot be imposed independently of the underlying sentence."].)
Accordingly, the judgment must be modified to stay the 29-year sentence the court
imposed for Macias's count 2 conviction of attempted murder. As modified, the
judgment is affirmed and the matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to
correct the abstract of judgment.
44
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to stay execution of the 29-year sentence the court
imposed for Macias's count 2 conviction of attempted murder. The judgment is affirmed
as modified. The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions that the clerk
prepare an amended abstract of judgment to reflect this modification to the judgment and
to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
45