People V Mendez Ca43

Key Facts

Issues

• Defense counsel requested CALCRIM No. 3477 (Presumption That Resident Was Reasonably Afraid of Death or Great Bodily Injury), but the trial court declined because the agents entered the premises lawfully. The appellate court reviewed whether this failure to instruct constituted prejudicial error.
• Mendez challenged the trial court's sentencing decisions, including whether the court erred by sentencing him consecutively on the two counts of assault on a peace officer and by imposing both firearm enhancements. The court sentenced Mendez to a total of 36 years 4 months in prison, including both firearm enhancements. The appellate court reviewed whether these sentencing decisions constituted error.
• Mendez requested a bench trial but defense counsel did not consent, and the trial court denied the request. The appellate court reviewed whether this denial constituted error, examining the procedural context and the interaction between the defendant's request and counsel's position.
• The prosecution moved to exclude evidence of a Department of Justice investigation into the incident. Defense counsel claimed the evidence was admissible to show the agent who fired into the building had motive to lie. The trial court excluded the evidence under Evidence Code section 352. The appellate court reviewed whether this exclusion constituted prejudicial error.
• Mendez appealed the trial court's denial of his request to represent himself at trial. The appellate court analyzed whether he had a constitutional right to self-representation under Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist. (2000) 528 U.S. 152, and whether he had a right to appointed counsel of choice under the due process clause, Sixth Amendment, or any other constitutional guarantee. The court found no arguable issue on appeal and concluded he was entitled to neither right.
• Mendez alleged that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by not challenging section 243, subdivision (e)(1), as a basis for prohibiting him from owning a firearm. The appellate court examined whether this failure constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and whether it raised any arguable issue on appeal.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The trial court excluded evidence of a Department of Justice investigation under Evidence Code section 352. The prosecution presented forensic, video, and photographic evidence at trial. The court permissibly excluded testifying witnesses from trial under Evidence Code section 777.
• The court applied independent review standards from People v. Wende and Anders v. California for Anders appeals. The court found no arguable issues on appeal. The Second Amendment was analyzed regarding firearm possession ban under section 29805 for persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
• The defendant claimed he fired a warning shot when he saw figures kicking down his gate during a law enforcement search. The court noted the agents entered lawfully and declined the jury instruction on reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. The case involves analysis of defensive use of force during a lawful search warrant execution.
• Defense counsel requested CALCRIM No. 3477 instruction on presumption that resident was reasonably afraid of death or great bodily injury. The court declined because the agents entered the premises lawfully. The court found no arguable issue on appeal regarding jury instructions.

Precedent Name

• People v. Wende
• United States v. Nutter
• People v. Kelly
• Anders v. California
• People v. Stone
• Martinez v. Court of Appeal
• People v. Clark

Cited Statute

• California Penal Code section 29805 subdivision (a)(1)
• California Evidence Code section 777 subdivision (a)
• California Evidence Code section 352
• California Penal Code section 243 subdivision (e)(1)
• California section 1382 subdivision (a)(1)

Judge Name

• Judge Gooding
• Judge Scott
• Judge Moore

Passage Text

• The judgment is affirmed.
• Special agents with the California Department of Justice approached Mendez's business and residence in 2022 with a search warrant for firearms registered to him—he had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and thus prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. The agents twice announced their presence with a search warrant and, after 30 seconds with no response, breached the rear door. Inside, they encountered a wooden barricade and began removing it. In response, Mendez fired one shot from a rifle. The agents retreated. A nine-hour standoff ensued, during which Mendez used a shotgun to shoot down two drones flown into the building and an agent fired back. Mendez ultimately exited the building and was taken into custody.
• We have reviewed the information counsel provided and have independently examined the record. We found no arguable issues.