People v. Joyner CA3

Filed 10/25/13 P. v. Joyner CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071202

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F07948)

v.

SEAN JOYNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Around 2 a.m. on October 23, 2009, victim David Blanks was fatally shot six times in a nightclub parking lot. The circumstances of the shooting were these: As Blanks was leaving the nightclub, someone asked him, “[W]hat‟s up Blood?” Blanks replied, “[W]hat‟s up „cuz?” “Blood” was a reference to the Blood criminal street gang and “cuz” was a reference to the rival Crip criminal street gang. One Nicholas Newsome started “mugging” (making mean faces at) Blanks. Newsome was an Oak Park Blood. Someone asked Blanks where he was from, to which he responded, “29th Street,” as Blanks was an affiliate of the 29th Street Crip gang. Others, including Newsome and

1

defendant Sean Joyner, yelled out, “nigga, this is Oak Park.” Defendant was also an Oak Park Blood. Blanks turned around, and someone repeatedly shot him. The day after the shooting, defendant texted Damanique McCoy, the mother of his three-year-old son, the following: “[B]abe, please. This is real serious. I fucked up. I think it‟s over, babe. On God, on my son, I didn‟t mean to do it.” She responded, “[W]hat‟s over?” Defendant texted, “Babe, I fucked up. But on God I didn‟t mean to do it.” During a conversation McCoy had with a police detective, she told the detective that defendant told her, “some guy got shot at [the nightclub],” “it was an accident,” and he (defendant) was there. When she asked if he was the shooter, he would not tell her and said he did not want to talk about it.1 Defendant and Newsome were both tried together in front of a jury for first degree murder with enhancements that at least one principal personally discharged a firearm and the murder was committed for the benefit of the Oak Park Bloods.2 A jury found defendant (and Newsome) guilty of second degree murder and, as to defendant, found true the murder was committed for the benefit of the Oak Park Bloods