5DCA Oral Argument - 2025/10/16 - Oct 16, 2025

argument

5DCA Oral Argument - 2025/10/16

California Fifth District Court of Appeal 12 min 4 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What case is being heard and who are the appearing counsel?

Unknown 0:00

Ha ha ha.

Denise Rudesol 0:01

Good morning.

Unknown 0:02

Good morning. Good morning, Your Honor.

John Merritt 0:03

We were just chatting.

Unknown 0:04

Yeah, we heard you. That's great. I'd love to we wanted to eav, but we didn't. Well at this time the court will call case number F zero eight six eight nine three, People versus Eduardo Flores. And we feel like we know you already, but counsel if you could state your appearances for the record, please.

Denise Rudesol 0:22

May it please the court, Denise Rudesol, on behalf of appellant Eduardo Flores.

John Merritt 0:27

Thank you. Good morning, your honors. Uh John Merritt appearing on behalf of the people.

Unknown 0:33

Thank you both very much. We are uh very familiar with the facts and circumstances of your case. Um Ms. Rudissal, you've asked for fifteen minutes. Would you like me to tell you when you have five minutes remaining?

Denise Rudesol 0:43

Yes, your honor.

Unknown 0:44

Okay. And you may proceed.

How does counsel outline the Racial Justice Act issues for the appeal?

Denise Rudesol 0:46

I'm going to focus my argument today on the part of issue B involving Penal Code Section seven hundred forty five, the Racial Justice Act, and Penal Code Section thirteen eighty five, subdivision C two A that references the Racial Justice Act. And I will submit on my written briefing regarding the remaining issues. Of course, if this court has any questions about any issues, I'll be happy to answer those questions. The trial court erred by declining to dismiss the premeditation allegation based on appellant's discriminatory racial impact argument because the statistical evidence appellant presented was sufficient to show a racial discriminatory impact or bias in both charging him with and sentencing him for the premeditation allegation, and this resulted in a life term.

Denise Rudesol 1:30

In her sentencing brief, Defense counsel asserted that appellants premeditation enhancement should be dismissed pursuant to Penal Code Section 1385 Subdivision C two A, which cites to the Racial Justice Act section on racially disparate sentencing, and she contended that the prosecution engaged in racial bias in charging appellant by alleging this premeditation enhancement. Which increases the sentence for attempted murder to a life sentence. Thus, if this court finds that the denial of appellant's request to dismiss the premeditation allegation pursuant to section thirteen eighty five C two was not error. It should construe appellant's request to dismiss this allegation as a substantive section seven hundred forty five A motion.

Denise Rudesol 2:14

Alleging racial disparity in charging and sentencing. Appellant is Hispanic. The statistical evidence defense counsel presented. showed that in Kern County between twenty eleven and twenty fourteen. Ninety-nine Hispanic defendants were charged with attempted murder, and the premeditation enhancement was alleged against forty-five of them. And out of the fifty four African Americans charged with attempted murder, thirty nine had this allegation, while only seven of the twenty four Caucasian defendants had the premeditation allegation. This means that about forty five percent. of Hispanics charged with attempted murder had a premeditation allegation. While only about twenty-nine percent of the Caucasians had this allegation, this shows a discriminatory racial impact and bias in both charging and sentencing.

Denise Rudesol 3:02

The statistical evidence defense counsel presented demonstrates a racially discriminatory bias or impact in sentencing because appellant is Hispanic. And these statistics show that Hispanics who were similarly situated and engaged in similar conduct with under non other non-minority defendants who were charged with attempted murder were much more likely to have a premeditation enhancement alleged and thus were way, way more likely to be sentenced to a much more harsh sentence than the Caucasians charged with attempted murder. Contrary to respondent claims, just because the legislature has one subsession. That delineates racial disparity in charging, and another that delineates racial disparity in sentencing does not mean that a racial justice act claimant is required to make a claim only under only one category when the claim clearly falls under two.

Denise Rudesol 3:51

It must be presumed the legislature was aware that racial disparity in charging a defendant.