Opinion
C082104
09-18-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID EARL WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 99F02370)
On July 27, 1998, 21-year-old Mallory Treadwell was scheduled to board a bus to join the California Conservation Corps. Instead, later that afternoon, a young girl found his bound, beaten, and strangled body in an irrigation ditch in Rio Linda. Juries twice found defendant David Earl Williams guilty of the first degree murder of Treadwell. Sentenced to 25 years to life in prison after his 2016 retrial, defendant appeals. He contends there is insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. The manner of the killing and defendant's motive--his mistaken belief that Treadwell had burglarized his house--provide sufficient evidence to support the conviction for first degree murder. We affirm.
FACTS
Treadwell was scheduled to take a bus to Auburn to the California Conservation Corps early Monday, July 27, 1998. The night before, he was in Sacramento saying good-bye to family. At 7:40 p.m., he phoned Linda DeBiase who did not receive the message until several hours later. At about 10:00 p.m., Treadwell rode his bicycle to visit his girlfriend at her mother's house. He left about 2:00 a.m. the morning of July 27 to go to his grandmother's house on 12th Avenue in Oak Park. He never arrived.
That afternoon, a 10-year-old girl, playing with her sister around a canal ditch in Rio Linda, found Treadwell's body. He was on the ground under a bridge. His pants and underwear had been pulled down and he was hog-tied with a blue-green rope. A size 60 belt was around his neck. The body was in full rigor, but there was no decomposition, indicating the time of death was 12 to 24 hours before. A trail of blood led to the roadway.
Treadwell had 13 separate injuries to his head, consistent with blunt force trauma. There were two furrow marks on his neck, one from the rope and one from the belt. The belt had fractured the hyoid bone while Treadwell was still alive. The cause of death was ligature strangulation. According to the pathologist, Treadwell would have lost consciousness in 10 to 15 seconds. If the ligatures had been released at that time, he would have regained consciousness.
The night before Treadwell's body was found, three men (John Parker, Marquist Murphy, and Billy Dee Smith) burglarized defendant's house, taking marijuana, a VCR, clothing, and jewelry. Parker lost his pager during the burglary. Defendant discovered the burglary when he returned from a late night trip to Wal-Mart. He reported the burglary to his neighbor around 2:00 a.m. on July 27. He also called his friend Corey Credic and asked him to come over. Defendant told Credic the burglar had dropped a pager. Defendant was missing a gun, clothes, jewelry, cash, a VCR, and marijuana.
Special Agent Rad Coulter with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was investigating John Wesley Jingles, defendant's brother. Defendant was the secondary target of the investigation. Coulter used Michael Roland as an informant. Roland had dealt crack cocaine with defendant in the 1980's. In the mid-1990's, Roland was indicted on a federal drug charge; he worked as an informant for the DEA to reduce his sentence. Roland came to Sacramento from Southern California when Coulter called him. The DEA provided funds that Roland used to purchase crack cocaine; one of Roland's purchases was from defendant. After that purchase, although Coulter was able to end the investigation and charge defendant, he continued the investigation to seek inroads into Jingles.
Coulter called Roland to Sacramento on July 27, and sent him to see defendant. At their first meeting, defendant and Roland discussed the price of drugs and other matters. Roland returned to defendant's residence that night and defendant told Roland he had recently pistol-whipped someone. Coulter sent Roland back wearing a recording device the next day, but there was no discussion of the pistol-whipping. Coulter told Roland to go back that evening with no surveillance. At that meeting, defendant told Roland the rest of the story.
Roland related that defendant had told him his house was broken into and his marijuana stolen. The burglar lost a pager and defendant found someone looking for a pager in his front yard. Defendant asked the man where he was from and the response was "Oak Park." Defendant had never seen the man before and assumed he was the burglar. Defendant tied the man to a tree and pistol-whipped him. Roland claimed variously that defendant had said he strangled the man or that one of his partners did. Defendant described the man as begging for his life and "squealing like a pig" before his neck was broken, and told Roland they had dumped the body in a ditch in Rio Linda.
Roland further reported he saw a portion of rope attached to the tree in front of defendant's residence. When Roland was visiting defendant, defendant's girlfriend showed defendant a newspaper and they mumbled and gestured. Roland got a copy of that day's Sacramento Bee and saw a story about a body found in a ditch. As soon as Coulter heard Roland's story, he contacted the local narcotics detective assigned to the DEA task force. That detective, in turn, contacted the homicide detective investigating Treadwell's death.
On July 31, 1998, officers stopped defendant's car after he left his residence and arrested him.
Defendant lived a few blocks from the home of Treadwell's grandmother. Officers searched defendant's house and found a pair of jeans with a size 60 inch waist and two large belts (size 50 inches and above). They also discovered the Metro section of the Sacramento Bee dated July 28, 1998--the day after Treadwell's body was found--in the trash. In the driveway were a carpet and a boat. A blue-green rope was behind the boat. Trace evidence examination revealed fibers on the rope used to tie Treadwell were similar in size and composition to those in that rope. Fibers on the rope and Treadwell's pants were similar to fibers of the carpet on defendant's driveway. Defendant owned dogs, and animal hairs on Treadwell's pants were within the range of animal hairs found in defendant's vehicle.
Defendant denied he killed Treadwell or even touched him. He confirmed his house was burglarized early on July 27 and marijuana, a VCR, a gun, clothes, jewelry, and cash were stolen. He found a pager he thought the burglars had dropped. Defendant claimed three other men confronted Treadwell, assaulted him, and choked him. One of these men had a gun and demanded defendant's belt which he handed over. Another came back with a car and a rope similar to the rope from defendant's boat. A dog jumped in the trunk of the car where they put Treadwell. The next day, defendant confronted one of the three men and asked what had happened. The man said, "Don't worry about it, we took care of it. [¶] And it ain't your business we took him to Rio Linda." This conversation took place in front of Roland.
A jury found defendant guilty of the first degree murder of Treadwell in 2001. A federal court reversed the conviction in 2012, finding ineffective assistance of counsel. In 2016, a second jury reached the same verdict.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation. He contends none of the factors in People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15 (Anderson) are present. Instead, defendant asserts, the evidence shows an impulsive killing, "a frenetic and frenzied assault."
"In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment of conviction, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, presuming in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence, to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Hayes (1990) 52 Cal.3d 577, 631.)
"In the context of first degree murder, ' "premeditated" means "considered beforehand," and "deliberate" means "formed or arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of action." [Citation.]' [Citation.] 'The process of premeditation and deliberation does not require any extended period of time. "The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly . . . ." [Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 636.)
In Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d 15, our Supreme Court surveyed the case law and identified three categories of evidence found sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation and deliberation. These categories are: "(1) facts about how and what defendant did prior to the actual killing which show that the defendant was engaged in activity directed toward, and explicable as intended to result in, the killing -- what may be characterized as 'planning' activity; (2) facts about the defendant's prior relationship and/or conduct with the victim from which the jury could reasonably infer a 'motive' to kill the victim, which inference of motive, together with facts of type (1) or (3), would in turn support an inference that the killing was the result of 'a pre-existing reflection' and 'careful thought and weighing of considerations' rather than 'mere unconsidered or rash impulse hastily executed' [citation]; (3) facts about the nature of the killing from which the jury could infer that the manner of killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a 'preconceived design' to take his victim's life in a particular way for a 'reason' which the jury can reasonably infer from facts of type (1) or (2)." (Id. at pp. 26-27.) The court concluded, "Analysis of the cases will show that this court sustains verdicts of first degree murder typically when there is evidence of all three types and otherwise requires at least extremely strong evidence of (1) or evidence of (2) in conjunction with either (1) or (3)." (Id. at p. 27.)
The Anderson categories are not exhaustive and other evidence may support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125.) "The Anderson guidelines are descriptive, not normative. [Citation.] The goal of Anderson was to aid reviewing courts in assessing whether the evidence is supportive of an inference that the killing was the result of preexisting reflection and weighing of considerations rather than mere unconsidered or rash impulse. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
Here, the evidence of motive and the manner of killing was sufficient to sustain the finding of premeditation and deliberation. The evidence established defendant's motive was retaliation for the burglary of his home. Defendant was angry that his property had been stolen and he believed Treadwell was one of the burglars, looking for his lost pager. Defendant's desire for retaliation was evident in the condition of the body; Treadwell had been badly beaten and tied up before he was strangled, with both rope and a belt, and his pants and underwear had been pulled down.
Defendant argues the burglary does not provide a motive for murder. He claims at most it provides a motive to recoup the stolen property. He argues that killing Treadwell before obtaining information as to the location of the stolen property "was illogical." But defendant's motive need not be logical. "[T]he law does not require that a first degree murderer have a 'rational' motive for killing. Anger at the way the victim talked to him [citation] or any motive, 'shallow and distorted but, to the perpetrator, genuine' may be sufficient [citation]." (People v. Lunafelix (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 97, 102; see also People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 87, overruled on another ground in People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 933, fn. 4 [defendant became angry when victims refused to sell him beer, believing they "were being rude to him"].)
The manner of killing, ligature strangulation, shows premeditation and deliberation. "Ligature strangulation is in its nature a deliberate act." (People v. Bonillas (1989) 48 Cal.3d 757, 792-793.) Our "Supreme Court has held that strangulation that takes place over several minutes affords the killer ample time to think over the consequences of his action." (People v. Shamblin (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1, 12, citing People v. Davis (1995) 10 Cal.4th 463, 510; People v. Hovarter (2008) 44 Cal.4th 983, 1019-1020; People v. Stitely (2005) 35 Cal.4th 514, 544.)
Defendant argues that unlike these cases, here there was no evidence of the length of time the strangulation took to cause death. The pathologist testified only that after 10 to 15 seconds the victim would lose consciousness, and would regain consciousness at that point if the ligature were released. Defendant contends this case is similar to People v. Rowland (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1, where death by strangulation was insufficient to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation.
The People do not address Rowland. --------
In Rowland, defendant met the victim at a bar and took her to his apartment which he shared with a girlfriend. The victim was later found on a dirt road; she had been strangled with an electrical cord. There was no evidence as to the length of time it took to kill the victim or her injuries. (People v. Rowland, supra, 134 Cal.App.3d at pp. 6-8.) The appellate court found minimal evidence of planning, no evidence of motive, and the manner of killing insufficient to establish premeditation and deliberation. (Id. at pp. 8-9.) While strangulation indicated a deliberate intent to kill, that established only malice, not premeditation and deliberation. (Id. at p. 9.)
We find Rowland distinguishable. Here, as in People v. Disa (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 654, 667-668, there was evidence of motive and additional evidence of the manner of killing, that the ligature was applied for over 15 seconds. The prolonged beating before the strangulation itself, during which 13 separate injuries were inflicted on Treadwell's head, gave defendant "ample time to consider the consequences of his actions." (People v. Shamblin, supra, 236 Cal. App. 4th at p. 12.) Further, the evidence that Treadwell was screaming and begging for his life demonstrated that defendant had time to consider his actions and "made a cold, calculated decision to kill the victim, i.e., that he acted with premeditation and deliberation." (People v. Vorise (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 312, 319.) Defendant or his confederate did not release the ligature after Treadwell lost consciousness. From this evidence the jury could reasonably conclude the killing was a "preconceived design" and not the result of a "rash impulse." (See Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 27.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Hull, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Mauro, J.