California v. Windfield
Annotate this CaseDefendants Harquan Johnson and KeAndre Windfield were each convicted of one count of murder and one count of attempted murder, and assault with a semi-automatic firearm, along with gun discharge and gang enhancement allegations as to the murder and attempted murder counts. The charges arose from the shooting of two members of their own gang, the Ramona Blocc Hustlas, resulting in the death of one of them. Both were sentenced to prison for 90 years to life. They appealed raising various claims. In the original opinion (filed August 19, 2014), the Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions for both defendants, but reversed Johnson’s sentence pursuant to California v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014), because, as a juvenile at the time of the crime, his sentence of 90 years to life was the functional equivalent of a term of life without possibility of parole and the Court directed other modifications of the sentence and abstracts of judgment. On November 12, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied both defendants’ petitions for review, but, on its own motion, issued a grant-and-hold of review as to defendant 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 California v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (2016), and retransferred this case to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its opinion and to reconsider Johnson’s sentence in light of Franklin. The appellate court vacated the original opinion and issued a second opinion on September 28, 2016, affirming those portions of its original opinion relating to issues not subject to the grant and hold, and reconsidered Johnson's sentencing claim in light of Franklin. Defendants again petitioned for review. This time, the Supreme Court granted review, deferring further action pending consideration and disposition of a related issue in California v. Canizales, which was then pending in that court. Following the issuance of that opinion, the Supreme Court retransferred the cases back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its opinion and to reconsider the cause in light of Canizales, 7 Cal.5th 591 (2019), and California v. Perez, 3 Cal.App.5th 612 (2016). In so doing, the Court of appeal affirmed convictions for both defendants, affirmed the sentence as to Winfield, but ordered a limited remand for a hearing at the trial court wherein both defendant and the State could make an accurate record of the defendant's characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense. The Court also ordered a limited remand of Johnson’s sentence to provide an opportunity to present evidence of mitigation due to his youth, pursuant to the holding 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.