Jarmon Sanford, sentenced to 89 years to life in prison for attempted murder in a 2006 Pasadena gang shooting, might be home for Christmas.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan has overturned one of two attempted murder convictions against Sanford because of a flaw in the prosecution’s jury instruction.
Sanford, who was 19 at the time of his conviction in 2008, is scheduled to be resentenced Nov. 20. His lawyers hope he will be sentenced to time served on the remaining attempted murder conviction, meaning he could be released from the California Institution for Men in Chino in time for the holiday.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Sanford was convicted of shooting a semi-automatic gun from a passing car at two rival gang members standing outside a Pasadena apartment complex in December 2006. One of the men, Trevell Thompson, was hit in the leg.
Key to the conviction was the prosecution’s misuse of the “kill zone” legal theory. The prosecution argued Sanford could be charged with attempted murder for everyone in the zone, regardless of whether he intended to kill them. Under that argument, there is no need to prove intent, thus elevating a standard shooting to a crime that carries a life sentence, said Sanford’s attorney, Annee Della Donna.
Della Donna argued to the Superior Court that the “kill zone” theory was overbroad and misapplied in Sanford’s case.
In 2019, the state Supreme Court ruled in People v. Canizales that the theory requires that the shooter intend to murder one specific person in the kill zone and be willing to kill all the others in the zone to accomplish that goal.
In Sanford’s case, there was no evidence he intended to kill the gang rival who was not hit, according to Ryan’s ruling. While there may be a “conscious disregard” for the victim’s safety, there is no intent to kill him.
Ryan found the prosecution’s explanation to the jury of the “kill zone” theory to be misleading and incorrect.
The prosecution described the theory this way: “If you intend to kill the person you intend to kill, and you don’t intend to but shoot somebody who is in the same zone.”
But Ryan ruled intent is required, even for those who are not the primary target.
“The court cannot find that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have rendered the same verdict absent these instructional errors,” Ryan ruled.
“This ruling is unbelievably huge,” Della Donna said. “Judge Ryan said to me on the bench the kill zone theory should never have been used in this case. … For me, it’s like groundbreaking.”
Della Donna remains convinced that Sanford, while a passenger in the car used in the shooting, did not fire the weapon — an argument that did not factor into the conviction reversal.
Della Donna has become somewhat of a specialist in “kill zone” cases after securing the release in 2020 of two men sentenced to multiple life sentences for a shooting in Lancaster, a case in which the appellate court ruled the “kill zone” theory was misapplied.
“This is hopefully (one) of many” reversals, Della Donna said.