California v. Windfield
Annotate this Case
A jury convicted Harquan Johnson and KeAndre Windfield of first degree murder, intentionally discharging a firearm causing death, and personally discharging a firearm causing death. Furthermore, the jury convicted defendants of attempted premeditated and deliberate murder, during which they personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury, and used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. Johnson and Windfield were members of the Ramona Blocc Hustla gang; an altercation between Johnson, Windfield and the victims gave rise to murder and weapons charges. As to both offenses, the jury found that defendants committed them for the benefit of the gang. Both were sentenced to prison for 90 years to life. They appealed, claiming the preliminary hearing testimony of a prosecution witness should not have been admitted into evidence at trial, the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions of attempted murder, and the jury was misinstructed. Defendants also claimed that the firearms allegation findings as to the attempted murder should have been stricken. Upon review, the Court of Appeal agreed in part and directed some to be stricken. Both defendants also asserted that the abstracts of judgment should have been corrected. The Court agreed with this, and directed the trial court to correct Windfield’s, and, upon the resentencing of Johnson, to ensure that his abstract and the minutes of the hearing correctly reflect the year the crimes were committed and the award of pretrial custody credit. Each defendant claimed that the sentence imposed upon him, without consideration of his individual characteristics, was a violation of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. To this, the Court disagreed as to Windfield and agreed as to Johnson. Therefore, the Court affirmed Windfield’s judgment except as to a few corrections. As to Johnson, the Court affirmed his convictions and remanded to the sentencing court for resentencing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.