People v. Morales

• Docket Number: B325035
• Decision Date: 20 May 2024
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CESAR MORALES, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CESAR MORALES, Defendant and Appellant.

B325035

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Third Division

May 20, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyNo. BA179633Michael E. Pastor, Judge.Affirmed.

Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

EDMON P. J.

In 2001, a jury convicted Cesar Morales of first degree murder and of attempted murder.Years later, he petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code^[1] section 1172.6, which limited accomplice liability for murder.After holding an evidentiary hearing under that section, the trial court found there was insufficient evidence Morales harbored express malice/intent to kill.It accordingly reduced the attempted murder conviction to assault with a firearm and resentenced Morales on that conviction.As to the first degree murder conviction the trial court found that section 1172.6 did not permit it to reduce the conviction to second degree murder and to resentence him.Morales appeals, contending that the trial court misapplied the law concerning second degree implied malice murder, there was insufficient evidence he committed that crime, and section 1172.6 does allow trial courts to reduce the degree of murder.We reject these contentions and affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

I.Evidence from Morales's criminal trial

Morales Ubaldo Cervantes, Jose Martinez, and Juan Naranjo were jointly tried for the murder of Joey Valentino and the attempted murder of Gustavo Alvarado.^[2]We take some of the background from the Court of Appeal opinion affirming the judgments of conviction against Morales and Cervantes, People v. Cervantes(2004)118 Cal.App.4th 162.

"On January 2, 1999, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Schundra Estrada heard a car engine outside her residence on Loosmore Street in the Cypress Park area of Los Angeles.Estrada then heard footsteps of more than one person leaving the car, followed by approximately eight gunshots from around the corner on Pleasant View Avenue.Estrada next heard footsteps running to the car, car doors closing and more than one voice saying, 'go, go, go, go.'Estrada looked outside and saw a white Honda leave the scene. . . .

"Police officers found Joey Valentino lying in a pool of blood on Pleasant View Avenue.Gustavo Alvarado was a few feet away.Both had been beaten about the face and shot in the head at a downward trajectory.Alvarado additionally had been shot in the back.One of Valentino's teeth had been knocked from his mouth.Valentino died as a result of the gunshot wound to the head.Alvarado lost an eye and remains paralyzed below the chest.^[3] Valentino and Alvarado were students at the time of the shooting and did not belong to a gang or carry weapons, and Valentino was in the Army Reserve.

"Shortly after the shooting, Los Angeles police officers followed a white Honda that refused to yield.Two males ran from the passenger side of the Honda toward a California Department of Transportation(Caltrans) yard and evaded the officers.The driver, Juan Naranjo, remained seated in the Honda and was apprehended.Martinez fled from the driver's side of the Honda.Shortly before the officers caught Martinez, he discarded a nine-millimeter Glock handgun.Martinez wore dark blue knit gloves and had a 30-round magazine clip for the Glock.

"In a search of the Caltrans yard, officers found a TEC-9 handgun, a loaded magazine for that weapon, a .357 magnum handgun and a latex glove.Two blue gloves were found at the entrance of the yard.A blue knit cap and another pair of dark gloves were found near the yard.

"A nine-millimeter Luger cartridge was found in the Honda.Cervantes's fingerprints were on the inside of the front passenger window of the Honda, which was registered to Morales.A hair fragment found on one of the knit caps shared 10 to 12 similarities, out of a possible 15, with Cervantes's hair.A bloodstain on the razor wire on top of the fence around the Caltrans yard contained Morales's DNA.

"Seven expended shell casings were found at the scene of the attack, and five additional casings were found across the street.A criminalist testified the Glock had fired 10 of the 12 casings.The 11th casing could have been fired by the Glock but was not fired by the TEC-9.The 12th casing could have been fired from the TEC-9 but was not fired by the Glock."(People v. Cervantes, supra,118 Cal.App.4th at pp. 165-166, fn. omitted.)

Statements Morales made to Dolores Ojeda^[4] were also introduced at his trial as follows:

"On January 2, 1999, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Dolores Ojeda, who worked as a surgical medical assistant, went across the street to the home of Morales.Ojeda had known Morales for approximately 12 years.Ojeda also knew Cervantes, Martinez and Naranjo.Ojeda's daughter dated Martinez for approximately 18 months.Ojeda spoke to Morales on the front porch of the residence.Morales had slashes and cuts on his hands which were swollen.

"Morales told Ojeda he received the cuts 'jumping fences.'Morales said he had gone to a party the previous night in Cypress Park with Cervantes, Martinez and Naranjo to look for some males who had made advances toward Morales's girlfriend.Naranjo drove and stopped when they saw two males.Morales, Martinez and Cervantes questioned the two males about where they were from and asked them about a 'girlfriend.'The two males were held at gunpoint on their knees and said they did not know what Morales was talking about.Morales struck one of the males with his handgun and told Martinez to search the males for weapons.Martinez did not find a weapon but Morales said one of the males had a weapon.Morales shot one male because his 'friend was lying.'When the second male ran, Morales and Cervantes shot him.Morales, Cervantes and Martinez returned to the Honda and told Naranjo nothing had happened.Morales ran from the car after they were followed by the police and jumped a fence near a freeway.Morales also told Ojeda he thought the two males were the 'wrong guys.'Morales expressed fear he might lose his job as a security guard."(People v. Cervantes, supra,118 Cal.App.4th at pp. 166-167.)^[5] When he was arrested on January 4, 1999, Morales had two lacerations on the palm of his right hand and the knuckles of his left hand were swollen and bruised.Cervantes had a long cut across his chest and several small cuts on his arms.

In 1998, before the crimes at issue occurred, Morales had told a police officer that he used a nine millimeter Glock handgun in his work as a security guard.

Ana Barraza testified that at the time of the shooting, she was dating Morales and that her child's father, a member of a Cypress Park gang, had threatened her.

A gang expert testified at trial that Martinez, Cervantes and Morales each had admitted membership in the same gang.The expert further testified that gang members earn respect within the gang by participating in certain criminal activities and that when gang members exit a car with loaded firearms in another gang's territory, it is reasonably foreseeable that someone is going to be shot.Shootings committed in another gang's territory would benefit Morales's gang by earning it respect.

II.Jury's verdict and sentence

Morales's jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine with CALJIC No. 3.02, with assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury or assault with a firearm as the target offenses.The jury found Morales guilty of first degree murder and premeditated, willful, and deliberate attempted murder.As to both counts, the jury found true principal gun use (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1),12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d) & (e)(1)) and gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) allegations.The jury found not true allegations that Morales personally used a firearm and personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victims.^[6]

In 2001, the trial court sentenced Morales to 25 years to life plus 20 years for the murder count and to life with a 15-year minimum parole eligibility plus 20 years for the attempted murder.

III.The petition for resentencing and evidentiary hearing

In 2019, Morales petitioned for resentencing under section 1172.6.The trial court found that Morales had stated a prima facie case for relief, appointed counsel to represent Morales, issued an order to show cause, and held an evidentiary hearing in June 2022.^[7]

At the evidentiary hearing, the parties did not introduce new or additional evidence.The trial court instead reviewed the reporter's transcript from Morales's criminal trial and heard argument.It then found, as to both the murder and attempted murder counts, that there was insufficient evidence Morales acted with express malice.However, as to count 1 for murder, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that he would be convicted of second degree murder under current law.The trial court based its finding on the "use of a family vehicle, . . ., the awareness of weapons, the motive a dual motive of significance because of jealousy and also his gang associations[,][h]is ordering that the vehicle be driven.His being involved, . . ., with the planning and preparation."Further, Morales wore gloves and fled with the other defendants.Thus, Morales's actions "demonstrate his subjective awareness of the dangers of his actions and the very real awareness of the risk to human life . . . in terms of his mens rea." ...