Mr. Ochoa was a methamphetamine jobber. He bought powdered meth from Misters Menendez and Venegas, who obtained the meth in Mexico. Ochoa warehoused the meth, cut it, and then processed it from powder form to crystalline. Then he sold it to various members of the Nuestra Familia (NF) gang. Ochoa began his operation in 2005 and it continued until 2007, when one of his NF buyers was arrested. Ochoa wished to continue to sell to the NF, but no further sales occurred.
May 13, 2008, Ochoa was arrested and charged with conspiring with suppliers Menendez, Venegas, and others, to distribute meth in Santa Clara county. He took a plea bargain for 10 years.
One month later, Ochoa was indicted, along with members of the NF, with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Santa Clara county. The defendants were also accused of committing their crimes with the intent to benefit the NF. Ochoa moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the prosecution was barred by PC 654. The trial court denied the motion and Ochoa took a plea deal for 11 years with the understanding that his sentence on the first case would be reduced to four years and change, resulting in a total prison term of 15 years and change.
Ochoa appealed the denial of his PC 654 motion and the Sixth District reverses.
The opinion is rare in that it contains a coherent summary of PC 654's prohibition against multiple prosecutions. This particular topic is Delphic and unfortunately most opinions only result in a further scattering of temple remains so as to render the original edifice unidentifiable. But this opinion does an admirable job of reconstruction.
PC 654 says that when the State is aware, or should be aware, of more than one offense in which the same act or course of conduct plays a significant part, all offenses must be prosecuted in a single proceeding (absent exceptions inapplicable here). The opinion examines the facts in both Ochoa's cases and determines they involve the same course of conduct, to wit, the agreements between Ochoa and his suppliers and between Ochoa and the NF buyers. This analysis also contains an excellent synopsis of the law of conspiracy, another oft-misunderstood legal topic.
The upshot is that the prosecutor of the second case was aware of the first, the agreements overlapped each other as to time and place, and the same evidence needed to prosecute the first case necessarily supplied proof of the second. Therefore the crimes in the second prosecution were barred under PC 654.
For Mr. Ochoa, this means his sentence is back to 10 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment