 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Stephenson12/31/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A jury convicted defendant Scott Christopher Stephenson of evading an officer by means of a high speed chase (Veh. Code, § 2800.2) and resisting an officer in the performance of his or her duties (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant admitted two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (c)) and service of two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to state prison for 25 years to life for the Vehicle Code section 2800.2 conviction plus two years for having served two separate prison terms; a concurrent jail term was imposed for the Penal Code section 148 conviction.
On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial made pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, and (2) his sentence of 25 years to life for evading law enforcement constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We shall affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
I.
Defendant's contention that the court erred in denying his Wheeler motion arises as follows. Following the People's exercise of their seventh peremptory challenge, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. Counsel noted that the prosecutor had used three of her last four challenges to exclude minority jurors, leading him to conclude that she was "intentionally eliminating from this jury panel all minority people . . . ."
Defense counsel identified the jurors as Ms. Riggs, who was Oriental, Mr. Connor, who was African-American, and Ms. Adkins, who was Hispanic. The court asked counsel if he had any other facts or observations supporting his conclusion. Defense counsel described defendant as appearing Hispanic. The court stated that while defendant was White, he did appear to be Hispanic. The court also agreed with defense counsel that Riggs appeared Oriental and that Connor was African-American; however, the court stated it was unable to determine whether Adkins "was of any minority."
The court observed that jurors 7, 9, and 11 were currently on the panel and that these jurors "both by name and by appearance" seemed to be of minority descent. Defense counsel disagreed as to jurors 9 and 11, stating, "I don't see any appearance minority on either of those." The court asked counsel if he had any additional facts to substantiate his motion. Counsel replied that he did not.
The court observed that Connor had been the only African-American on the panel and he had been excused; that in the court's opinion, three minorities remained on the panel; that the prosecutor had removed three Whites from the panel for which the court could discern "no apparent reason;" that defendant was White, but appeared Hispanic; that since there was no specific victim, the victim's race was not an issue; and that Officer Jurado, a witness, was Hispanic.
The court again asked counsel if he had anything to add. Counsel replied that defendant was not White, but was Black and Indian. The court responded, "Well, that's a surprise to me, but apparently to you also, [counsel]." The court again asked if counsel had anything further, and counsel replied that he did not. The court stated it could not find "a series of facts based on those stated by [counsel] that would lead the court to a reasonable inference that indeed the peremptories have been exercised for the purpose of excludin
Page 1 2 3 4 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|