People v. Espinoza
| Docket Number | B307621 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 2022 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE ANTONIO ESPINOZA et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. YA013704 Nicole C. Bershon, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer A. Mannix, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant Jorge Antonio Espinoza.
Kelly C. Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Antonio Silva.
Law Office of Stein and Markus, Andrew M. Stein, Joseph A. Markus and Brentford Ferreira for Defendant and Appellant Alfredo Sanchez Espinoza.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 1992, Jorge Antonio Espinoza, Alfredo Sanchez Espinoza,[1] and Antonio Silva (collectively defendants) committed an armed home-invasion robbery and then fled the police in a car driven by a coparticipant in the crime. The car ran a stop sign and crashed into another vehicle, killing two of its occupants and injuring two others. At the time of the crime, Alfredo was 17 years old and both Jorge and Silva were 19 years old. Defendants were convicted of two counts of first degree felony murder for the deaths of the two victims killed in the collision.
In 2019, each defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code[2] section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6).[3] Following an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied each petition based on a finding that defendants were not entitled to relief under section 1170.95 because they were major participants in the felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.
On appeal, each defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the superior court's finding that he was ineligible for section 1170.95 relief. Silva also asserts the superior court erred in refusing to consider youth as a relevant factor in ruling on the petitions, and in relying on certain inadmissible evidence in violation of section 1170.95 and the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause. We affirm.
On the evening of November 7, 1992, defendants committed an armed robbery at a residence in Hawthorne, California. A fourth man, Rutilo Aguilera, waited in a car outside the residence and acted as the getaway driver. The group was also joined by an unidentified woman.
At the time of the robbery, 16-year-old Norma Barraza was inside the residence with her young niece and nephew, both of whom were under the age of 10. Barraza heard a knock on the front door and a voice asking for Robert. After Barraza responded that no one named Robert lived there, she stood behind the door with her hand on the knob waiting for the person to leave. A shotgun blast suddenly ripped through the doorknob, injuring Barraza's hand. The door was then kicked open. Silva, armed with a 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun, and Alfredo, armed with a chrome .44 Magnum handgun, both entered the home. Jorge, armed with a black .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun, remained at the doorway, acting as a lookout.
Once inside the home, one of the men ordered Barraza's niece and nephew to get on the ground. The children complied and were taken to the living room where they sat on the sofa. Barraza initially ran into a bedroom to hide, but was found by the men and taken to the kitchen. Alfredo pointed his gun at Barraza and the two children. Alfredo also threatened to kill Barraza, and Silva threatened to rape her. Alfredo and Silva rummaged through the home. They took Barraza's ring from a drawer inside a bedroom. After about three minutes, Jorge saw the police and told his companions, "Let's go."
Defendants ran from the residence into the waiting car. A neighbor who saw the men fleeing the home observed that one of them held a white bag in his hand. The car, driven by Aguilera, took off down the street with the police in close pursuit. About a block and a half from the residence, the car ran a stop sign and then crashed into another vehicle. That vehicle was occupied by Indricka Kelsey, her young daughter, her friend Ida Logan, and Logan's young daughter Jameshia Perkins. Logan and her daughter died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision. Kelsey and her daughter survived the collision, but suffered serious injuries. The driver of the getaway car, Aguilera, also died from injuries sustained in the collision.
Immediately following the collision, one to two shots were fired from the getaway car.[4] Defendants and their female companion then fled the scene on foot. A police officer pursuing the suspects saw Alfredo with a chrome gun as he ran away. Alfredo was found hiding a short distance from the scene of the collision and was arrested at that time. Jorge was arrested a few days later. Silva and the female suspect ran into a nearby laundromat and asked a customer for a change of clothes. After changing clothes, Silva and the woman returned to the scene of the collision to see what was happening, and then left.
A chrome revolver and a white bag containing money were found near the area where Alfredo and Jorge were seen running. A sawed-off shotgun containing four shells, a loaded .40-caliber handgun, and a large quantity of heroin were recovered from inside the getaway car.
In an interview with the police following his arrest, Alfredo admitted he had participated in the robbery. He identified his coparticipants by their purported gang monikers, and denied knowing their true names. According to Alfredo, the group committed the robbery because "Chuco" said that some people at the residence owed him money. Chuco and "Spider" searched the residence, and after Chuco threatened the female victim, she told them where the money was located. Defendants then fled the home with a bag of money and were passengers in a car driven by "Big Boy" when the collision occurred.
In his interview with the police, Silva also admitted he was involved in the robbery. The detective who interviewed Silva provided a detailed description of his statements to the police at Silva's preliminary hearing. According to Silva, the driver of the car, Aguilera, asked Silva to help him commit the robbery because people at the residence had "ripped him off" in a drug deal.[5] Aguilera supplied the guns used in the crime, including a shotgun that he gave to Silva. Silva described the weapon as a terminator-style shotgun. While Aguilera stayed in the car, Silva fired a shot through the door, and then defendants went inside the home. They stole drugs and a bag of money and fled in the car when they saw the police were coming. Aguilera said he was not going to jail and crashed into another car when he ran a stop sign. After the crash, Silva heard a shot but did not know who had fired it. He got out of the car and ran from the scene. Silva told the police that he felt guilty about what had happened because he later learned from the news a child had been killed in the collision. Silva also said that he had asked the driver of the getaway car to stop once he realized the police were on the scene.
In 1994, following a joint trial before a jury, Jorge and Alfredo were each found guilty as charged of two counts of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), one count of first degree residential robbery (§ 211), one count of first degree residential burglary (§ 459), and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246). Various firearm enhancement allegations (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)) were found to be true as to each of them. Jorge and Alfredo were each sentenced to 66 years and 8 months to life in state prison.
In 1996, as part of a plea agreement, Silva pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and admitted two firearm enhancement allegations (§12022, subd. (a)(1)). All remaining counts and allegations against him were dismissed. Silva was sentenced to 50 years to life in state prison.
Jorge filed an appeal from his judgment of conviction. In an unpublished opinion filed on December 24, 1996, this court affirmed the judgment against Jorge. (People v. Espinoza (Dec. 24, 1996, B086254) [nonpub. opn.].)
In 2019, defendants each filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. Each defendant alleged he was entitled to relief under the newly enacted statute because he was convicted of murder pursuant the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, he was not the actual killer, he did not aid or abet a murder with the intent to kill, and he was not a major participant in the underlying felony and did not act with reckless indifference to human life.
In support of his petition, Silva attached a sworn declaration in which he stated that he "only agreed to the robbery or burglary, not . . . a murder [he] never fathomed." He further stated that once the group left the residence and the police began chasing them, he "repeatedly told the driver of the vehicle to pull over and stop so [he] could jump out but the driver refused." Silva also supported his petition with his 1996 postplea probation report, and with the factual background section of this court's prior opinion in Jorge's appeal. The probation report reflected that Silva told the probation officer that he did not believe the murder charges were fair because he had asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial