## Facts

- Murray Stanford was in Sacramento County jail and organized a plan to sell rock cocaine through two friends who were not incarcerated: Rudy Mamaril and Taneshia Carter.
- Stanford communicated with Mamaril and Carter through recorded jail telephone calls and used coded language because the participants knew the calls were monitored.
- The prosecution alleged that Stanford and Mamaril committed multiple overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, including arranging transportation and sale of cocaine and Stanford giving operational directions from jail.
- Carter was arrested on unrelated charges and agreed to cooperate with the prosecution; she testified at trial as a participant in the drug activity.
- At trial, the prosecution introduced numerous recorded calls between Stanford, Mamaril, and Carter concerning the drug activity; Carter translated the coded terminology for the jury based on her familiarity with the language used in drug sales.
- Investigating officers testified that, based on training and experience, the content and context of the recorded calls reflected drug transactions.
- The prosecution also introduced a note from Mamaril to Stanford connected to the drug operation.
- A jury convicted Stanford and Mamaril of conspiracy to sell rock cocaine. In separate proceedings, the prior-conviction and prior-prison-term allegations were found true as alleged for sentencing purposes.
- The trial court imposed indeterminate Three Strikes sentences and added time for certain enhancements; as to Mamaril, the court imposed one prior-prison-term enhancement and stayed the remaining prior-prison-term enhancements.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy convictions when the principal witness was an accomplice, and defendants argued her testimony lacked the corroboration required by Penal Code § 1111.
2. Whether the conspiracy conviction was undermined because some charged overt acts allegedly described only formation of the agreement rather than acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
3. Whether sentencing error occurred when the court stayed (rather than striking or otherwise properly disposing of) certain prior-prison-term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b), and whether the court abused its discretion by declining to strike a prior strike conviction under Penal Code § 1385.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgments.
- The court held there was sufficient independent evidence—especially the recorded jail calls and the note—tending to connect each defendant to the conspiracy, satisfying Penal Code § 1111’s corroboration requirement.
- The court rejected the overt-act challenge, concluding that the conspiracy was supported by proof of at least one properly alleged and proven overt act and that any complaint about particular overt-act allegations did not justify reversal.
- The court found no reversible sentencing error in the handling of Mamaril’s prior-prison-term enhancements and found no abuse of discretion in the refusal to strike a prior strike conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 1111, accomplice testimony must be supported by independent evidence that tends to connect the defendant with commission of the offense; the corroboration may be slight and may be circumstantial.
- Recorded communications may serve as corroborating evidence when their content and context, along with testimony explaining code words and drug-transaction patterns, connect the defendant to the charged conduct.
- For conspiracy, an overt act need not be criminal by itself; it is enough that the act is a step taken to carry out the agreement.
- Proof of any one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy may sustain the conspiracy conviction even if other overt-act allegations are disputed.
- Claims of error in pleading or describing overt acts do not warrant reversal absent a showing that the jury’s verdict was affected.
- Sentencing choices involving prior convictions, prior prison terms, and whether to strike a prior strike under Penal Code § 1385 are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an error that does not change the actual term imposed may be treated as harmless on appeal.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed Stanford’s and Mamaril’s convictions for conspiracy to sell rock cocaine, ruling that Carter’s accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence including recorded coded jail calls and a note tied to the operation, that the overt-act allegations did not undermine the verdict because at least one valid overt act was shown, and that the sentencing challenges—both to the treatment of prior-prison-term enhancements and to the refusal to strike a prior strike—did not justify reversal.


People v. Mamaril, 2009 WL 1177057 (2009)