Filed 2/25/21 P. v. Martinez CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and 

Respondent,

v.

HECTOR MARTINEZ,

Defendant and 

Appellant.

 B298512

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA466051)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, David V. Herriford, Judge. Affirmed.

Gail Harper, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________
2

In March of 2018, Marcus Brown and Luis Cabrera 

purchased beer at a liquor store owned by defendant and 

appellant Hector Martinez. In the course of the transaction 

Brown and Cabrera offended Martinez, and a fight broke out 

between the two men and Martinez and his two sons, who 

were also in the store that day. Martinez stabbed Brown, 

who died from the wound several hours later.

The jury found Martinez guilty of second degree 

murder (Pen. Code, § 187 [count 1]),1 and found true the 

allegation that he used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a 

knife, in commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). 

He was sentenced to 15 years to life, plus 1 year for the 

weapon enhancement. Martinez timely appealed.

We appointed counsel. After reviewing the record, 

counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to review the 

record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 

Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On November 2, 2020, we advised 

Martinez that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or 

issues he wished us to consider.

On December 4, 2020, Martinez filed a supplemental 

brief contending that the key witness for the prosecution lied 

and that defense counsel “failed to get evidence and or video 

‘proof’ that was readily available” to disprove the witness’s 

statements.2 He did not otherwise identify the evidence he 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.

2 We accepted the late-filed brief.
3

contends trial counsel could have obtained and offered, nor 

did he specify how such purported evidence would have 

made a more favorable outcome reasonably probable. 

(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 693 [to 

establish ineffective assistance of counsel defendant must 

demonstrate prejudice]; People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 

Cal.4th 264, 266–267 [where the record on appeal sheds no 

light on why counsel failed to act in the manner challenged, 

an ineffective assistance claim must be rejected, and such a 

claim is more appropriately decided in a habeas corpus 

proceeding].) Martinez expressed regret for his actions and 

explained that he was not initially truthful with the police 

about what happened in the store because he panicked.

We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied 

no arguable issues exist and that Martinez’s appellate

counsel has fully satisfied her responsibilities under Wende. 

(Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

The judgment is affirmed.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J. BAKER, J.