Mancinas v. Covello
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:18-cv-06235
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 21
In Mancinas v. Covello, Judge Rogers denied Christopher Mancinas’s federal challenge to his gang-participation conviction and denied a certificate of appealability.
Christopher Mancinas, whose federal challenge to his California gang-participation conviction was denied; the respondent was the acting warden, Marcus Pollard.
What happened
In Mancinas v. Covello, Christopher Mancinas asked a federal court to overturn his California conviction for actively participating in a criminal street gang in connection with Dewey Tucker’s killing. He argued that the evidence was insufficient, especially because the jury acquitted him of three other charges related to the killing.
The court reviewed the evidence under the demanding federal standard for challenging a state conviction. It concluded that a reasonable juror could have found that Mancinas knowingly and deliberately helped gang members commit a felony, based on evidence including his presence near the shooting, his role involving a stolen car, his communications with another gang member, and other circumstances.
The court held that the state appellate court’s decision was not objectively unreasonable, denied the petition, and denied a certificate of appealability. Judge Rogers also ordered the file closed.
The detailed version
- Mancinas v. Covello · No. 4:18-cv-06235
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 3, 2020
Background
Christopher Mancinas, a state prisoner, was serving an aggregate 22-year sentence from three Sonoma County criminal cases. In the case challenged here, a jury convicted him of actively participating in a criminal street gang under California Penal Code § 186.22(a), in connection with the gang-related killing of Dewey Tucker. The jury acquitted him on three other counts involving conspiracy to commit murder, murder, and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle.
Mancinas filed this federal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 without a lawyer. He challenged only whether the evidence was sufficient to support the gang-participation conviction. He argued that the jury’s acquittals on the other three counts showed that it had rejected the prosecution’s theory that he aided the shooting and killing, leaving insufficient evidence for the gang charge.
Legal standard
The court applied the federal constitutional rule that a conviction must be supported by evidence from which a rational juror could find every required element beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the California courts had already rejected Mancinas’s claim, the federal court also applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s additional requirement that the state court’s decision be objectively unreasonable before federal relief could be granted.
Under California Penal Code § 186.22(a), the prosecution had to prove that Mancinas actively participated in a criminal street gang, knew its members engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, and willfully promoted, furthered, or assisted felony conduct by gang members. The dispute in federal court concerned the third element.
Court’s analysis
The court found sufficient evidence for a rational juror to conclude that Mancinas willfully assisted felony conduct. The evidence included testimony that he was a high-ranking and influential Sureño gang member; his driving fellow gang members to Vallejo; his assistance in obtaining a stolen car; evidence placing him near the shooting when it occurred; his instructions to his girlfriend not to speak with police or say he had used her car; his calls with another high-ranking gang member after the killing; and evidence concerning the murder weapon and the stolen vehicle.
The court also rejected Mancinas’s argument that the acquittals on the other counts made the gang-participation conviction legally unsupported. It held that California law did not require a separate conviction for an underlying felony before a person could be convicted under § 186.22(a). It further explained that inconsistent verdicts—an acquittal on one charge and a conviction on another—are generally allowed, and the sufficiency of the evidence for one conviction is assessed separately from the jury’s decision on other counts.
The federal court concluded that the state appellate court reasonably applied the federal evidence standard and that its decision was not objectively unreasonable. The court therefore denied Mancinas’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied a certificate of appealability. Judge Rogers stated that Mancinas could seek a certificate from the Ninth Circuit, and ordered the clerk to terminate pending motions and close the file.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.