Richmond woman’s sentence called unconstitutional, is reduced

A state appeals court has taken the rare step of reducing the mandatory life prison sentence of a Richmond woman who shot and gravely wounded a man who had just taken part in the beating of her father.

Deyanira Cuiriz was sentenced to 27 years to life in prison for attempted voluntary manslaughter, mayhem and shooting at an occupied vehicle. On Tuesday, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said her sentence — mandated by a 1996 California law — was unconstitutionally excessive and “shocks the conscience,” and lowered it to 12 years.

The court noted that Cuiriz’s sentence was longer than the 25-to-life term for first-degree murder under state law, and said her guilt was “at the bottom end of the spectrum” for her crimes. The victim had provoked the attack, the shooting was unplanned, and Cuiriz, 19 at the time, had no criminal record, the court said.

“This is one of those rare instances in which the prescribed penalty does exceed constitutional limits” on cruel and unusual punishment, said Justice Stuart Pollak in the 3-0 ruling. He said an appropriate sentence was the 12-year term that the trial judge, Trevor White of Contra Costa County Superior Court, said he would have imposed for attempted manslaughter had it not been for the 1996 law.

Cuiriz and her family were celebrating her 19th birthday in August 2012 when two men drove up to her home and confronted her father. She told police she saw her father on the ground with his face bleeding and, when she tried to intervene, the two men pushed her away. She said they told her they were gang members and threatened to return. She got a gun from her boyfriend and fired a shot into their truck, hitting Oscar Barcenas in the spine. The bullet paralyzed him from the neck down.

In upholding Cuiriz’s convictions, the court said she had voluntarily confessed to police without a lawyer present and admitted she had acted partly out of anger. The court said her crimes were “serious and dangerous” but did not justify a potential life sentence.

The crime “resulted from a moment of impaired judgment in response to the victim’s provocation,” Pollak said.

With the reduced sentence, Cuiriz could be released in 2023 with time off for good behavior in prison.

Pollak said most of the jurors had been stunned that their verdict required a sentence of up to life in prison. At Cuiriz’s January 2015 sentencing hearing, one juror told White, the judge, that they felt betrayed, and another called the mandatory-sentencing law “obscene.”

Robert Derham, a lawyer for Cuiriz, said four jurors attended last week’s appeals court hearing to show their support for his client.

“The (original) sentence imposed was senseless, it was cruel, and it served no purpose,” he said.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office said it was reviewing the ruling and declined further comment. The office could ask the state Supreme Court to review the ruling.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @egelko

Read the ruling

www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A144351.PDF