Editor’s column
A few days ago I had a chat with Ron Webster, the Deputy District Attorney who led the prosecution against the 2011 Cinnamon Creek Killers.
Two of the three were scheduled for a Jan. 28 resentencing hearing, now scheduled for Feb. 25, under the state’s new law on murder convictions through the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
The crime
On Jan. 5, 2011, John David Salazar drove Adrian Powers and Anthony Legaspi, armed with a gun provided by Jose Lara, to Redlands’ Cinnamon Creek Apartments, according to court testimony.
Legaspi fired on five high schoolers, Quinn McCaleb, Andrew Jackson, Tequan Thomas, Jordan Howard and Antonio Puente, who were sitting in the complex’s playground discussing evening plans.
McCaleb and Jackson died while fleeing. Legaspi injured Thomas and Howard, and missed Puente.
Read a more thorough account here.
The trial
Powers, a minor at the time of the shooting, made a deal to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter with a gang enhancement, with a potential prison term of three to 21 years, in exchange for his testimony.
Prosecution charged Legaspi, 17 at the time, as the lone shooter. Lara and Salazar were prosecuted as direct aiders and abettors under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. They were convicted on two counts of second-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder and one count of participation in a criminal street gang. Lara was also convicted with being an accessory after the fact.
“When 13 gang members shoot into a window, you can’t say which gang member killed the little girl inside. We use natural and probable consequences because we can’t say whose bullet went into the body.”
Ron Webster, San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office
Legaspi is entitled to a parole hearing once he has served 25 years of his 220-year sentence. He will be 42.
The case was tried in San Bernardino Superior Court in front of Judge Annemarie G. Pace.
SB 1437
The court sentenced Lara and Salazar to multiple life terms, with the possibility of parole.
SB 1437, in conjunction with SB 775, which went into effect Jan. 1 – allows people convicted of murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition for sentence reduction.
Also called the theory of felony murder, the doctrine is based on the idea that an aider and abettor is guilty of any offense that is a natural and probable consequence of the crime aided and abetted.
Attorney Aaron Spolin describes it this way: If during the course of a robbery five people are robbing a victim and one robber (fatally) shoots the victim, then all five robbers would be guilty of “felony murder.”
The Cinnamon Creek prima facie hearing
Under SB 1437 Lara and Salazar are able to petition for resentencing consideration for their two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder. At this time, they have petitioned only for the murder charges, according to Deputy District Attorney Webster.
“A big unknown is how quickly they can return from prison, because of COVID restrictions,” said Webster by phone the day before the hearing he correctly predicted would be continued. “They have a right to be there. The hearing (Jan. 28) would just try to give the defense attorneys enough information to decide whether to get the defendants from prison.”
The judge is now in a juvenile courthouse, so the hearings will not have the same public access previous proceedings had, when she was in adult court.
If on Feb. 25 the court finds they have made a prima facie showing, the DA’s office will have 60 days to challenge their petitions before an evidentiary hearing.
Changes’ effect on courts
I asked Webster how the new state laws are affecting the courts, which are already backlogged after COVID-related shutdowns, which have pre-existing judge vacancies, and which are dealing with assembling juries amid OSHA restrictions.
“Our office has received 200 to 300 petitions under SB 1437. Three hundred cases against tens of thousands per year doesn’t necessarily overload the system.”
Robert Webster
“In court, everyone in America has a right to a speedy trial. In California, once you are arraigned in a felony case, you have a California Constitutional right to be brought to court within 60 days,” he said. But COVID has brought two years’ worth of extensions to that timeframe.
The problem is not court overwhelm, he said.
“Our office has received 200 to 300 petitions under SB 1437. Three hundred cases against tens of thousands per year doesn’t necessarily overload the system.”
The problem is proving guilt years after a trial has come and gone.
“The bigger issue is the old cases,” he said, and offered an example.
“The theory of murder is commonly used in gang cases. Do you remember a 2005 San Bernardino drive-by shooting that killed an 11-year-old girl?”
I said, “Mynisha Crenshaw.”
“Yes. When 13 gang members shoot into a window, you can’t say which gang member killed the little girl inside. We use natural and probable consequences because we can’t say whose bullet went into the body. They’ve removed (a prosecuting option) that was available to us for decades.”
For many of these cases, including Lara and Salazar’s, eligibility for sentence reduction may have no practical effect, because they have multiple life sentences.
Follow Our Courts will provide updates on Lara and Salazar’s hearings.
