Court Opinion

ID: 9912798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-23 00:02:22.52278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:44.984420
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/22/23 P. v. Esparza 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  B323807

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. MA037295)
         v.

JAVIER ESPARZA,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lisa Mangay Chung, Judge. Affirmed.
      Waldemar D. Halka, 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, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and J. Michael
Lehmann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                     I.     INTRODUCTION

       In 2011, a jury convicted defendant Javier Esparza of first
degree murder and kidnapping. In 2019, defendant filed a
petition for resentencing of his first degree murder conviction
pursuant to former Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court
judge, who had presided over defendant’s trial, denied the
petition. Defendant contends the court erred. We affirm.

                      II.   BACKGROUND

A.    Defendant’s Underlying Convictions

      The following background is taken from the unpublished
opinion in the direct appeal from defendant’s underlying
convictions (People v. Garcia (Aug. 17, 2012, B231949) [nonpub.
opn.] (Garcia))2:

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise stated. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature
renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 with no change in
text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Further references will be to the
statute’s current section number only.

2     Neither party presented additional facts at the evidentiary
hearing on defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and neither party
contends the facts as recited in the prior appellate opinion do not
accurately reflect the facts in the trial record in this matter.
Accordingly, we set forth the facts from the prior opinion as
context for defendant’s claims. In our discussion below, we will
address other facts from the record of defendant’s underlying
convictions as necessary.

                                 2
      “The body of Nicholas Ramirez was found in the trunk of
his own car by police on September 18, 2006. The car was located
in a desert field. Ramirez had been shot nine times. Ramirez
had last been seen by his family on September 16, 2006.
      “Some physical evidence connected [defendant, Jaime
Garcia, and Claudio Bernardino][3] to the murder of Ramirez, but
most of the evidence against them came from the testimony of
Matthew Foust.
       “Foust testified that on September 16, 2006, about
2:00 a.m., he arrived at . . . Garcia’s house in Littlerock,
California. Foust had driven from his home in Arizona to
purchase a set of car rims from Garcia. When Foust arrived, a
party was going on in the garage, but Foust went in the house
and slept.
       “That morning, about 6:00 or 7:00 a.m., Foust drove Garcia
to Garcia’s girlfriend’s house, where they picked up the rims.
When they returned to Garcia’s house, Garcia noticed that the
tires on his car were slashed and his speakers were missing.
Garcia was noticeably upset. [ ] [Defendant], who is Garcia’s
brother, speculated that it ‘could have been them guys from last
night.’
       “The party the previous night had been a birthday party for
Garcia’s close friend, Jesse Ramirez. Jesse’s brother Nicholas
Ramirez, the victim in this case, was at the party. [ ] [Defendant]
and Bernardino were also at the party.
       “At some point during the party, Jesse got into a fight with
[defendant]. Jesse left the party about 7:00 or 8:00 a.m., with

3     Garcia and Bernardino were tried with defendant and the
jury also convicted them of first degree murder and kidnapping.
(Garcia, supra, B231949.)

                                 3
Martin Guzman, who was living with Garcia at the time.
According to Jesse, Guzman took a suitcase and clothes that
belonged to Garcia, and slashed the tires of Garcia’s car. The two
men then took a train to Los Angeles.
       “After [defendant]’s comment, Garcia went into the house
and got his gun. He then told Foust, ‘You are going to take us to
go find this guy.’ Foust was scared and did what he was told. He
drove Garcia and [defendant] to Cesar Reyes’s house. Reyes was
standing outside, waiting for them. Foust then drove to
Ramirez’s house.
       “As Foust and his passengers arrived at the Ramirez house,
Nicholas had just finished washing his car and was leaving in
that car. According to Ramirez’s brother, David, and sister,
Yvonne, this occurred around 10:30 a.m. Yvonne saw Foust’s car.
Ramirez did not stop. Both Garcia and [defendant] told Foust to
follow Ramirez.
       “Foust followed Ramirez to a gas station and pulled in right
behind Ramirez’s car. Garcia and Reyes got out of the car,
approached Ramirez and, after the three men talked, Ramirez
returned to his car accompanied by Garcia and Reyes. Garcia
entered the front passenger seat and Reyes returned to Foust’s
car and told him to follow Ramirez’s car.
       “Foust followed Ramirez to . . . Bernardino’s house. Foust
initially told police that the others went inside the house, but he
stayed outside and talked with his girlfriend on his phone. He
never went inside. At trial, he denied making those statements.
He testified that he went inside with the others.
       “Inside the house, both Garcia and Reyes asked Ramirez,
‘Where is my stuff?’ or ‘Where is my stereo?’ Reyes hit Ramirez
in the face, knocking him to the ground. Reyes began kicking

                                4
Ramirez. Garcia continued to ask, ‘Where is my stuff?’ Ramirez
replied he did not have it and did not know where it was.
Bernardino told Garcia to stop because Ramirez was bleeding on
his carpet. Bernardino directed [defendant] to take Ramirez to
the garage. Reyes forced Ramirez into the garage and everyone
followed. Garcia ordered Foust to go to the garage.
       “In the garage, Garcia bound and tied Ramirez to a chair.
Ramirez continued to deny he had Garcia’s stolen items or that
he knew where they were. [Defendant] now had Garcia’s gun and
sat down in front of Ramirez while both Garcia and Reyes
threatened to kill him if he did not disclose the location of
Garcia’s items, as well as Reyes’s stereo. Eventually, Ramirez
said, ‘I want to die. Just take my life.’ Garcia then inserted a
gag into Ramirez’s mouth, Reyes used a pipe to strike Ramirez
several times on his head and upper body, and Garcia hit
Ramirez several times. For their part, [defendant] and
Bernardino kicked Ramirez. At some point, Reyes asked Garcia
if Foust was ‘cool.’ Garcia told Reyes, ‘Yeah. It’s okay,’ which
increased Foust’s fear.
       “Ramirez was walked out of the garage. Garcia ordered
him into the trunk of his own car. After Garcia closed the trunk
lid, he told [defendant] and Reyes to follow him. [Defendant] and
Reyes told Foust, ‘We’re taking your car to follow’ Garcia.
[Defendant] sat in the back seat and Reyes sat in the front
passenger seat as Foust drove, following Garcia. Having seen
what the men had just done to Ramirez and recognizing that
Reyes by himself could have beaten him in a fight, Foust was
even more afraid.
       “After about 5 to 10 minutes of driving, Reyes told Foust to
stop the car. When he did so, Reyes got out of the car and ran

                                5
away. [Defendant] ordered Foust to continue following Garcia.
Foust did as he was told. After Garcia pulled off onto the
shoulder near some shrubs, Foust continued on past Ramirez’s
car for about 100 feet and stopped his car when [defendant] told
him to stop. [Defendant] got out of the car and walked towards
Ramirez’s car while Foust remained inside his car. Foust
realized he had an opportunity to leave, but he stayed because he
was aware that these men knew where his sister lived and that
they were perfectly capable of finding him.
       “When Foust looked back, he saw Garcia standing over the
trunk with the same handgun which he brought with him, the
same one [defendant] had been holding in the garage. Foust
looked away. He then heard at least four to five gunshots. When
Foust looked back, he saw Garcia in the back seat area of
Ramirez’s car and [defendant] standing near the driver’s door.
As Garcia and [defendant] entered Foust’s car, they both told
Foust ‘Go.’
       “Garcia gave Foust directions to the house where they had
earlier picked up Reyes. There, all three went into the house.
Garcia and [defendant] changed their clothes and shoes, and
Foust drove them back to Garcia’s house. Garcia and [defendant]
both told Foust they were going to Arizona with him. Out of fear,
Foust drove Garcia and [defendant] to Arizona. Garcia and
[defendant] stayed with Foust for a day or two before leaving on
different buses. Before Garcia left, he told Foust ‘we’re going to
come and get you’ if Foust told anybody what had happened.
       “Bernardino fled to Mexico. He was eventually arrested by
the FBI and brought to California.
       “On September 18, 2006, the police responded to a call
about a suspicious vehicle in a desert field. The vehicle was

                                6
Ramirez’s car with his body in the trunk. Ramirez was bound at
the wrists with cords, and gagged with a cloth and masking tape.
There were nine bullet holes in the top of the trunk, and the
prosecution expert opined that Ramirez had been shot when the
trunk lid was closed. Ramirez had suffered nine gunshot
wounds. The bullet pattern on the trunk lid and Ramirez’s
position inside the trunk were consistent with the shooter firing
straight down into the trunk, firing three shots at Ramirez’s head
and six shots over Ramirez’s torso. (Garcia, supra, B231949.)

B.    Defendant’s Section 1172.6 Petition

       On June 13, 2019, defendant filed a form section 1172.6
petition for resentencing of his first degree murder conviction.
On September 23, 2020, the prosecution filed its response to the
petition. On October 15, 2021, the trial court set the matter for
an order to show cause hearing. Thereafter, the parties filed
briefs for the evidentiary hearing.
       On July 6, 2022, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing
on defendant’s section 1172.6 petition. At the outset of the
hearing, the court noted that it presided over the trial of
defendant’s underlying convictions and had reviewed “the trial
notes.” Further, the court admitted a compact disc containing
the “court transcript of the reporter’s transcripts . . . .”
       After hearing arguments from the parties, the trial court
denied defendant’s section 1172.6 petition. The court reviewed
the trial evidence and defendant’s role in the kidnapping and
murder and ruled that defendant’s “physical presence and his
role afterwards in fleeing, to this court, supports beyond a
reasonable doubt his liability, both as an aider and abettor,

                                 7
specific intent to kill, conspiracy, and then in the felony murder
nature that his participation in concert with the defendant’s [sic]
and his own actions constituted a reckless indifference to life.”

                       III.   DISCUSSION

      Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his
section 1172.6 petition because the prosecution failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of murder under an
aiding and abetting, a conspiracy, or a felony murder theory—i.e.,
that he was a major participant in the kidnapping and acted with
reckless indifference to human life. We disagree.4

A.    Standard of Review

      “In determining whether a trial court correctly denied a
section 1172.6 petition following an evidentiary hearing, ‘“‘we
review the factual findings for substantial evidence and the
application of those facts to the statute de novo.’”’ [Citation.]”
(People v. Arnold (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 376, 383.)5 “‘A

4     Because we hold that substantial evidence supports the
court’s aiding and abetting ruling, we need not reach defendant’s
arguments concerning the court’s conspiracy and felony murder
rulings, including his argument that the court erred in failing to
consider his “youth and maturity level in ruling that his
participation in the kidnapping amounted to reckless indifference
to human life.”

5     Defendant acknowledges that “every published appellate
court case to date has reviewed a superior court’s denial of a
section 1172.6 petition following a hearing under subdivision

                                  8
substantial evidence inquiry examines the record in the light
most favorable to the judgment and upholds it if the record
contains reasonable, credible evidence of solid value upon which a
reasonable trier of fact could have relied in reaching the
conclusion in question. Once such evidence is found, the
substantial evidence test is satisfied. [Citation.] Even when
there is a significant amount of countervailing evidence, the
testimony of a single witness that satisfies the standard is
sufficient to uphold the finding.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Fuiava
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 711.)

B.    Aiding and Abetting

       “An aider and abettor is someone who, with the necessary
mental state, ‘by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or
instigates, the commission of the crime.’” (People v. Smith (2014)
60 Cal.4th 603, 616; People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1227
[“An aider and abettor is chargeable as a principal, but his
liability as such depends on whether he promotes, encourages, or
assists the perpetrator and shares the perpetrator’s criminal
purpose”].) Factors that are relevant to determining whether a

(d)(3) for substantial evidence,” but asks us to review the trial
court’s denial of his petition de novo because (1) section 1172.6
petitions are akin to petitions for writs of habeas corpus and the
standard of review for an original proceeding for habeas corpus
relief is de novo, and (2) “trial courts do not have an advantage
over appellate courts in determining section 1172.6 eligibility
based on the record of conviction.” Neither proffered reason
persuades us to depart from the substantial evidence standard of
review. (See People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 301
[rejecting de novo review].)

                                9
defendant was an aider and abettor include “‘presence at the
scene . . . , companionship, and conduct before and after the
crime, including flight.’” (People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913,
924; People v. Garcia (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 261, 273 [aiding and
abetting factors “include presence at the scene of the crime,
failure to take steps to attempt to prevent the commission of the
crime, companionship, flight, and conduct before and after the
crime”]; In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1095 [aiding
and abetting factors include presence at the scene of a crime,
flight with the perpetrator, and accompanying the perpetrator
thereafter].)
       Substantial evidence supported the trial court’s ruling that
defendant aided and abetted Ramirez’s murder:
       When Garcia discovered that his tires had been slashed
and his speakers stolen, defendant suggested that Ramirez might
be responsible. Defendant’s suggestion caused Garcia to get his
gun and to direct Foust to take him and defendant to find
Ramirez. On the way to Ramirez’s house, they picked up Reyes.
       When defendant, Garcia, and Foust arrived at Ramirez’s
house, Ramirez was leaving in his car. Defendant told Foust to
follow Ramirez. They caught up with Ramirez at a gas station
and kidnapped him.
       Foust and Ramirez drove to Bernardino’s house where
Garcia and Reyes questioned Ramirez about the location of
Garcia’s “stuff” and Reyes’s stereo. Reyes punched and kicked
Ramirez who denied possession of or knowledge about the
missing property.
       Because Ramirez was bleeding on Bernardino’s carpet, he
was taken to the garage where Garcia bound and tied him to a
chair. Defendant had Garcia’s gun and sat down in front of

                                10
Ramirez while Garcia and Reyes threatened to kill him if he did
not disclose the location of Garcia’s property and Reyes’s stereo.
       Eventually, Ramirez said, “I want to die. Just take my
life.” Garcia gagged Ramirez and Reyes struck Ramirez several
times on his head and upper body with a pipe. Defendant kicked
Ramirez. Bernardino said, “‘Don’t blast him here. Take him out
to the desert.’”
       Garcia and his confederates walked Ramirez out of the
garage and Garcia ordered him into the trunk of his own car.
Garcia told defendant and Reyes to follow him and defendant told
Foust, “We’re taking your car to follow” Garcia. After Reyes
abandoned the planned murder by exiting Foust’s car on the
journey to the desert, defendant ordered Foust to continue to
follow Garcia.
       When Garcia pulled off the road at the site of the murder,
Foust continued to drive until defendant told him to stop.
Defendant got out of Foust’s car and walked towards Ramirez’s
car. Garcia stood over the trunk of Ramirez’s car with the
handgun defendant had been holding in the garage. Foust looked
away and heard gunshots. Foust looked back and saw defendant
standing near the driver’s door of Ramirez’s car. Garcia and
defendant entered Foust’s car and told him to drive away.
       Foust drove to the house where they had picked up Reyes.
After changing their clothes and shoes, Garcia and defendant
drove with Foust to Arizona where they remained for a day or
two before leaving on different buses.
       This evidence showed that defendant knew of the killer’s
unlawful intent and intended to assist in achieving that unlawful
end. (See People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 447.) In front of
defendant, Garcia and Reyes threatened to kill Ramirez if he did

                                11
not disclose the location of Garcia’s property and Reyes’s stereo.
Bernardino said that they should not “blast” Ramirez in
Bernardino’s garage but they should take him out to the desert.
That is, that Ramirez should be murdered at a secluded location
where the murder would not be detected or tied to Bernardino.
Defendant directed Foust to follow Garcia to the planned murder
site in the car ultimately used as the getaway car, keeping Foust
on course after Reyes got out of car and withdrew from the
murder plan and ordering Foust to stop as he continued to drive
after Garcia pulled off the road at the murder site. Defendant
stood by Ramirez’s car as Garcia fired nine shots into the trunk
where Ramirez lay. Defendant did nothing to try to stop the
murder. After Ramirez’s murder, defendant fled with Garcia,
first to Reyes’s house to change their clothes and then to Arizona
where they remained for a day or two.
       Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying
defendant’s section 1172.6 petition.

                                12
                      IV.     DISPOSITION

     The order is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                       KIM, J.

We concur:

             RUBIN, P. J.

             MOOR, J.

                                13