3 bouncers at Mo’s Place may get plea deal in 2012 beating death of out-of-town patron
By Kathryn Reed
It is likely the three Mo’s Place bouncers will serve less than four years behind bars for their role in the death of Derek “Zippy” Penaranda.
Penaranda, who was from Ripon, was in South Lake Tahoe in May 2012 to celebrate his 30th birthday. He never recovered from the injuries he sustained from a fight at the Highway 50 bar. He died in October 2012.
Rodolfo Hernandez, 44, is charged with involuntary manslaughter. He has been in custody since he turned himself in after being indicted. He is on an immigration hold and could be deported if found guilty. If Hernandez is guilty, he faces a maximum of four years in county jail. (Because of changes in California prison rules a conviction of manslaughter is no longer a prison term.)
Derek “Zippy” Penaranda and Katie Musselwhite had hoped to marry one day. Photo/Provided
Sean Canilao, 49, and Ruben Lizzaragga, 41, are charged with assault with force that is likely to cause great bodily injury. Both are out on their own recognizance. They face a maximum four-year prison sentence.
“One of the inconsistencies in the legislation is punishing of different types of crimes,” Joe Alexander, El Dorado County deputy district attorney, said of the new sentencing rules set by the Legislature.
Hernandez, Canilao and Lizzaragga are scheduled to be tried at the same time. The trial date is Feb. 11 in Placerville. However, a readiness and settlement conference is set for Jan. 3 before Judge Daniel Proud.
“I believe there is some likelihood of it settling on that date,” Alexander said in reference to next month’s hearing.
“There is evidence the crime was committed, but also other things occurred that to some extent mitigate the crime itself. Evidence that makes it more difficult than appears on the surface,” Alexander told Lake Tahoe News.
If a settlement were reached, that would mean the three men would be serving less than the four-year maximum for each of their crimes. Canilao and Lizzaragga until now had clean records, so they would benefit from good behavior allowances.
“Early on I told my family don’t be surprised if they only get probation. That is something the judge can initiate. We are in a wait-and-see mode,” Wayne Penaranda, the victim’s father, told Lake Tahoe News.
Penaranda has been at every court hearing. He is in regular contact with prosecutors. Now he wants it all to be over. His family wants closure.
“No amount of punishment will do anything or bring my boy back. It is kind of an academic situation. We are not real happy with it, but it’s the letter of the law,” Penaranda said. “All of the laws are built to protect the criminals’ rights.”
The prosecutor in this case has apparently admitted there issues that, “mitigate the crime itself”. I’ve followed this case and want to explain law pertaining to self defense. Mo was punched by Penaranda, and was knocked out from the punch. The three defendants then came to aid Mo who was on the floor. Obviously, Mo could not defend himself. Law, applicable to self defense, allow people to come to the aid of another person and defend that person’s safety. So far, these defendants were acting within the law. Then from that point foreword the details of what happened are not entirely clear. Law on issues of self defense are clear. However, people are not often knowing of how law applies. When there is reasonable fear that a person may be seriously injured or die, the law pertaining to self defense allows for use of deadly force. Under the circumstances, these defendants can reasonably make a claim their actions were lawful. But, (and this is a big but) self defense law requires the person claiming self defense to stop their action once the danger has passed. Excessive force cannot be used. This means that Penaranda, in this case, couldn’t be continually beaten after Mo was out of further danger. The defendants can argue that once Mo was knocked out, Mo was in danger of serious injury, or perhaps in danger of being killed. Thus there was a right to use deadly force against Penaranda. The prosecutor can claim that the beating continued after Penaranda was separated from Mo. and there was no danger that Mo would be struck again while the beating upon Penaranda continued. This is not the end. Once the defendants separated Penaranda from Mo, the defendants were then in danger of being struck by Penaranda. Remember, Penaranda had punched Mo and knocked out Mo, so Penaranda was a serious danger to those acting against him. These defendants can then claim that they were in danger and then were acting to defend themselves. Then, these defendants must stop their action when Penaranda is no longer a danger to them. To convict a defendant, there must be proof of the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. These are the mitigating circumstances that this prosecutor has to overcome before he can get a conviction.
I’ve described the law in my explanation above. That is the law, and that is what the law says. You, who don’t like the law, can disagree with the law. Don’t bother disagreeing with me, because this is not my opinion, its the law. The circumstances may have been different than what I have learned. I don’t know if the prosecutor can prove use of excessive force. Excessive force is proven if Penaranda was beaten after he was no longer a threat to anyone. It may be the prosecutor can prove excessive force was used.
Thank you TPE for explaining the law very clearly. It seems several people could have avoided the result of a tragic death. Too much useless and uncontrolled testosterone. My heart goes out to Zippy’s family.
The story leaves out the most important piece of information. That is the whole incident was fueled by the same stuff you put in your gas tank, ethyl alcohol. It is about time alcohol is banished and all bars closed down. Liquid courage has caused more deaths and injuries than all the firearms and knives and non-alcoholic drugs combined, not to mention the millions of women who get the c**p beat out of them and families destroyed. It is time to stop the carnage caused by the most dangerous of drugs. Prohibition now, tomorrow, and forever for the sake of the dead and injured bodies to come.
“He is on an immigration hold and could be deported if found guilty”.
Big deal, he’ll just slither back into our country.
I feel for the parents but don’t forget it was your drunken out of control son who started all this because he couldn’t handle his alcohol. I’m NOT taking the dirt bag bounces side by any means, but your son could have prevented this tragedy.
All three of these “bouncers” should do time.
A tragic situation for everyone involved. As for prohibition? Prohibition didn’t work when it was the law of the land. It just drove alcohol underground. Drugs are illegal and substance abuse (and related crimes) are epidemic. There are laws in place that bars are not allowed to continue to serve alcohol to people who are clearly intoxicated. I question to what extent those, already existing laws, are enforced. I do agree that the effects of excessive alcohol use are too often violent and tragic but, ultimately, it is people who have the power to make responsible choices and who must be held accountable for their actions.
Sometimes people are unexpectedly confronted by danger and must act in self defense. These situations often materialize in a few seconds of time, and sometimes without any warning. The fact that one defendant is in this country illegally, is irrelevant. Based on what I’ve learned about the case, these guys are likely innocent, and should prevail at trial. I’ll bet their lawyer won’t go to trial.
Lots of gumshoe lawyers on this site that invariably have no clue what they’re talking about. “These guys are likely innocent?!” They were hired security who continued to pummel this guy to death LONG after he had been subdued and knocked unconscious himself. That’s a crime. Also, our fake lawyer’s analysis leaves out the critical fact that these people were HIRED SECURITY for the event. That completely changes the dynamic of the self defense claims. I’ll also point out that it’s called “SELF defense”…. Not “defense of your boss that hired you illegally.” Another critical fact missed in the above faulty analysis.
These guys are toast. That’s why they will plea down to a few years… Regardless, this is a tragedy that should have never happened. Lots of unclean hands here.
Actual, has it been awhile since you took the Bar?
“Deadly force can only be used in situations where: 1) the defendant reasonably believed that he, or someone else, was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; 2) the defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; and 3) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger. Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how likely the harm is believed to be. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable, the killing was not justified.”
Moral PizzaGP Hazard,
Have you ever passed the bar? Of course you haven’t. Stop with the pantload full of pretend attorney and delusional Jr. Detective BS when real people’s lives are affected by these real world court decisions.
Bijou, my post was a quote from a case where a security guard killed a person in California.
Moral Hazard is correct. Actual Real Life Lawyer, I’ve never been more confident that you are wrong while myself and Moral Hazard are right. In fact what Moral Hazard has stated here is exactly how self defense law is described in the statutes. I’m puzzled as to how a lawyer can know so little about self defense law while Moral Hazard and myself know much more. Back to the case at hand. If I saw a man knock out another man, I would think fear of serious injury, is reasonable fear. There also comes the right to defend the person whom has been rendered helpless. ( that’s Mo) The issues of excessive force have not been settled in this case. As I said before, this excessive force area is where the prosecutor could have a case. But to convict requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that Mo was already knocked out. That raises reasonable doubt in many people’s minds. That is why, when I consider the information I know of, I believe the prosecutor cannot prevail at trial. B. B. You’d be wise to accept Moral Hazard’s explanation. Moral Hazard is 100 % correct. I suspect that Moral Hazard may be an attorney, but is not saying.
There is another weakness in the prosecutor’s case. Mr. Penaranda was the initial aggressor, and I don’t think that issue is in dispute. If I were representing these defendant’s, I’d make certain that each juror understood that issue clearly. Then the defendant’s would have two major facts in their favor, 1, Mo was knocked out and laying on the floor. 2. Mr. Penaranda was the initial aggressor. The judge will instruct the jury that their verdict cannot be based upon pity. With these two facts entered into evidence, you’d likely raise reasonable doubt and cause a not guilty verdict.