Nonetheless, officers went to a motel room rented by Sifuentes who had a "no-bail" parole arrest warrant. Another occupant of the room, a fellow gang member Lopez, was located next to a mattress which concealed a loaded handgun. The gun was not tested for DNA or fingerprints. At trial, a gang expert testified about the prominent role that guns play in the gang subculture: a "gang gun" is passed among members for their criminal endeavors; gang members inform others if they possess a firearm because it garners respect and it warns members who may have penal consequences based on probation or parole. No direct evidence tied the particular gun in this case to other gang members or indicated that it had been used by the gang. There was insufficient evidence to support Sifuentes’ conviction for being a felon in possession of the firearm based on the doctrine of constructive possession. There was a failure to prove that he knowingly exercised a right of control over the firearm, either directly or through another person. Mere proximity, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence of possession.
The failure to bring a motion to suppress does not support a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this case. Defense counsel was
not asked for an explanation, but he reasonably may have concluded that such a
motion was unlikely to succeed. A review of the record indicates there was an
arrest warrant for Sifuentes who was on parole. Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S.
573, 602-603, holds an arrest warrant carries with it the authority to enter a
dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect
is within. The motel manager testified at trial that identification and a
credit card are required to rent a room. Sifuentes was the registered guest in
the room. The officers did not receive a response to their announcement, but
heard movement in the room from which it was reasonable to assume that he was
in the room.
The complete failure to obtain a waiver of jury trial and a
waiver of other constitutional rights requires reversal of the strike
allegation and the prior prison term allegations. The defense motion to
bifurcate the trial on the priors from the remaining charges was granted at the
time defense counsel represented that the defendant intended to admit the
allegations. There was no waiver of jury trial at that point. After the jury
verdicts on the substantive charges, the court did not advise him of his
constitutional rights or obtain waivers. It is a silent record case. It may not
be inferred from a totality of the circumstances that the admissions were
voluntary and intelligent. People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 359-360, only
supports consideration of the defendant's prior experience with the criminal
system in cases with incomplete advisements. The reversal would not bar a
retrial of the prior conviction allegations.
© 2011 Darren Chaker. All Rights Reserved.
