California v. Windfield
Annotate this CaseA jury convicted Harquan Johnson and KeAndre Windfield of first degree murder, during which they personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death, and a principal personally discharged a firearm causing death. The jury also convicted defendants of attempted premeditated and deliberate murder, during which they personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury, and a principal used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. As to both offenses, the jury found that defendants committed them for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The jury also convicted defendants of assault with a semiautomatic firearm, during which they personally used a firearm and which they committed for the benefit of a criminal street 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 claim that the firearm allegation findings as to the attempted murder must be stricken. In its original opinion (dated August 19, 2014), the Court of Appeal agreed in part and directed that the jury’s true findings that the defendants personally used a firearm or personally and intentionally discharged a firearm to be stricken. Both defendants had asserted that the abstracts of judgment should be corrected and Court 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 reflected 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, is a violation of the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court of Appeal disagreed as to Windfield, but agreed as to Johnson. Therefore, Windfield’s judgment was affirmed except as to corrections the trial court was directed to make. As to Johnson, the Court affirmed his convictions and remanded to the sentencing court for consideration of the factors as set forth in "California v. Gutierrez," (58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014)). Then the California Supreme Court denied both defendants’ petitions for review, but, on its own motion, issued a grant-and-hold of review as to Johnson, for consideration pending review in "In re Alatriste," (S214652), "In re Bonilla," (S214960), and "California v. Franklin," (S217699). On May 26, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in "Franklin" (63 Cal.4th 261 (2016). The Supreme Court then retransferred this case to the Court of Appeals with directions to vacate its opinion and to reconsider the juvenile sentencing issue in light of "Franklin." Pursuant to that order, the Court of Appeals vacated its original opinion; reaffirmed those portions of its original opinion pertaining to issues not subject to the grant and hold, modify its holding of Windfield’s cruel and unusual punishment issue, and reconsidered Johnson’s sentencing claim in light of "Franklin."
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.