Court Opinion

ID: 9889224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 23:03:09.841783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:13.215686
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/6/23 P. v. Zamora CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,                                                B327392

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
                                                           Super. Ct. No. BA349543)
         v.

ESEQUIEL ZAMORA,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed.
      Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal; Esequiel Zamora, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                 _______________________
                          INTRODUCTION

       A jury convicted Esequiel Zamora in 2010 on one count of
willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, § 187,
subd. (a),1 two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and
premeditated murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and conspiracy to commit
murder (§ 182, sub. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Zamora to
an aggregate prison term of 36 years four months to life. We
affirmed Zamora’s conviction. (People v. Zamora (Nov. 14, 2011,
B224529) [nonpub. opn.].)
       On December 7, 2022 the superior court denied Zamora’s
petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former
section 1170.95) without issuing an order to show cause. The
court ruled that Zamora was ineligible for relief as a matter of
law because the jury, in finding Zamora committed the murder
and attempted murders willfully, deliberately, and with
premeditation, necessarily found he had the specific intent to kill
and that the trial court had not instructed the jury on the natural
and probable consequences doctrine or any other theory in which
malice could have been imputed to him. ~(RT 192)~ Zamora
appealed from the order denying his petition.
       Zamora’s appointed counsel, after reviewing the record, did
not identify any arguable issues. We have independently
reviewed the record and considered the arguments in Zamora’s
supplemental brief. We also find no arguable issue and affirm.

1     Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

     A. Zamora’s Convictions for Murder and Attempted Murder
       On November 23, 2008 Luis Mazariegos, a member of the
Easy Riders criminal street gang, was living with his family on
the third floor of an apartment building on South Main Street in
Los Angeles. That afternoon Mazariegos was at home and
getting ready for work when he saw a white car parked at the
intersection of Main Street and 70th Street. Zamora, a member
of the Wild Boys criminal street gang, got out of the white car
and pointed at Mazariegos. Mazariegos was “in shock” and did
not know why there was a problem because members of the
Easy Riders got along with members of the Wild Boys. Zamora
began writing graffiti on the wall. With spray paint Zamora
crossed out certain gang graffiti and painted Wild Boys and other
gang graffiti. Mazariegos understood this meant there was “a big
conflict coming up.” (People v. Zamora, supra, B224529.)
       Late that night Mazariegos was lying on the couch in his
apartment. His younger brother, Ivan, told Mazariegos to be
careful and said, “It’s your fault, man, they’re out there in the
white car. They won’t leave, you know.” Later, Mazariegos
heard shots. Ivan, who was on the porch, said, “They got me.
They got me.” Mazariegos tried to go downstairs, but family and
friends stopped him. Mazariegos saw four or five people running
on Main Street toward 69th Street. Mazariegos identified
Zamora in a six-pack photographic lineup. (People v. Zamora,
supra, B224529.)
       Gilbert Hinojosa, who was on the porch with Ivan and two
other men, saw three or four people directly across the street.
A bullet hit Ivan, and Hinojosa tried to revive him with

                                3
cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Ivan died from a single gunshot
to the chest. Hinojosa described the four men he saw to the
police, and one of the men on the porch identified Zamora from a
six-pack photographic lineup. (People v. Zamora, supra,
B224529.)
       At the time of the shooting, Mazariegos’s younger sister,
Jackie, was walking to the apartment with some relatives.
Jackie saw two men at separate corners of the intersection of
Main Street and 70th Street and three men in the street. One of
the five men pulled out a gun and fired at Jackie’s apartment.
The five men ran toward Jackie, and she ran toward them and
screamed. The men turned and ran away. Jackie later identified
Zamora as one of the five men who shot at the apartment.
(People v. Zamora, supra, B224529.)
       Efren Gutierrez, who had known Zamora for two years,
testified he was visiting his aunt’s house before the shooting.
Gutierrez testified that Zamora talked about crossing out another
gang’s graffiti on the corner of Main Street and 70th street and
that Zamora wanted to shoot someone. Later, when Gutierrez,
Zamora, and co-defendant Edgar Canales went to get food,
Gutierrez heard Zamora talking with Canales. Gutierrez stated
that he heard Canales say, “Should I do it already?” or “Should I
dump already” and that Zamora said, “We’ll handle it, Perrito.”2
When they got near the corner of Main Street and 70th Street,
Gutierrez, who was walking approximately 20 feet behind
Zamora and Canales, heard a gunshot. Gutierrez ran and heard
four or five more gunshots. (People v. Zamora, supra, B224529.)

2    Gutierrez testified that in this context “perrito” meant
“homie” or “little brother.” (People v. Zamora, supra, B224529.)

                                4
       The People charged Zamora with one count of murder, two
counts of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and
active participation in a criminal street gang conspiracy. After
the trial court dismissed the criminal street gang conspiracy
count, the jury convicted Zamora on the remaining four counts
and found true allegations Zamora committed the murder and
attempted murders willfully, deliberately, and with
premeditation. ~(CT 159-162)~ The trial court sentenced Zamora
to an aggregate term of 36 years four months to life.
       In Zamora’s direct appeal we rejected his contentions that
the trial court violated his due process rights by admitting
irrelevant and unduly prejudicial gang evidence and that the
court erred in denying his pretrial motion to bifurcate the gang
allegations. We corrected the abstract of judgment to state the
correct custody credits and to reflect that restitution award
against Zamora and Canales was joint and several. We also
imposed a court security fee and court facility assessment on all
four counts. (People v. Zamora, supra, B224529.)

      B. Zamora’s Petition for Resentencing
       On January 26, 2022 Zamora, representing himself, filed a
form petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 and
asked the court to appoint counsel for him. ~(CT 61)~ The People
opposed the petition, arguing that Zamora was not eligible for
relief as a matter of law because “the jury was not instructed on
natural and probable consequences, felony murder or any other
theory that allowed the jury to impute malice” and that, “as to all
three counts, the jury found true the allegation that the crimes
were committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation.”

                                 5
~(CT 84)~ Zamora filed a reply,3 arguing that he had stated a
prima facie case and that the record did “not demonstrate beyond
a reasonable doubt that no juror could have relied on a derivative
theory of murder.” ~(CT 167)~
       On December 7, 2022 the superior court denied the
petition. The court stated Zamora “was not convicted of felony
murder. The jury instruction on natural and probable
consequences was not given to the jury. The defendant was not
convicted of any count on a theory that is no longer valid. The
jury decided that the defendant had the specific intent to kill in
that they found that the murder and attempted murder counts
were committed with willfulness, deliberation, and
premeditation. The court has considered the appellate opinion
affirming the conviction of November 14th of 2011, the package of
jury instructions submitted to the jury, and the verdict form for
counts one through four. That’s what the court has considered.
The defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The
petition is denied.” ~(RT 602)~ Zamora filed a timely notice of
appeal. ~(CT 194)~

                         DISCUSSION

       We appointed counsel to represent Zamora in this appeal.
After reviewing the record, counsel did not identify any arguable
issues. On August 23, 2023 counsel advised Zamora that he was
filing a brief stating he was unable to find any arguable issues

3     Zamora’s court-appointed counsel explained that Zamora
wanted to write the reply brief himself and that she typed it up
for him. ~(RT 602)~

                                6
and that Zamora could submit any contentions he wanted the
court to consider.
       On September 8, 2023 we received a four-page handwritten
supplemental letter brief from Zamora, arguing that he “had
nothing to do with that murder” and that he last spoke to Ivan
three weeks before the shooting. Zamora contended that
Gutierrez lied about the incident and that Zamora’s family would
have been in danger had he told the truth about Gutierrez at
trial. According to Zamora, he was walking with Gutierrez and
Canales to a fast food restaurant when he heard shots. Zamora
asserted: “I do remember Gutierrez, Canales walking in front of
me. I didn’t know that Canales shot at them on the apartments.”
       The record confirms that the trial court did not give any
instructions on the natural and probable consequences doctrine,
the felony-murder rule, or any other theory under which the jury
could have imputed malice to Zamora. To the contrary, the trial
court instructed the jury that, to convict Zamora of first degree
murder, the People had to prove Zamora “acted willfully,
deliberately, and with premeditation. The defendant acted
willfully if he intended to kill. The defendant acted deliberately
if he carefully weighed the considerations for and against his
choice and, knowing the consequences, decided to kill. The
defendant acted with premeditation if he deiced to kill before
committing the act that caused death.” ~(CT 133)~ The trial court
further instructed the jury that, to find Zamora guilty of
attempted murder, the People had to prove “that the attempted
murder was done willfully, and with deliberation and
premeditation.” ~(CT 138)~ Because the jury convicted Zamora of
willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and attempted
murder, under the trial court’s instructions the jury had to have

                                7
found Zamora acted with the intent to kill. (See People v. Mumin
(2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 190 [“To elevate that offense to murder in
the first degree on a malice theory, the defendant must act with a
specific intent to kill that is formed willfully, deliberately, and
with premeditation.”]; see also People v. Gaines (2023)
93 Cal.App.5th 91, 131 [“[a]ttempted murder requires the specific
intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act
toward accomplishing the intended killing”].)
       Nothing in the record supports Zamora’s assertion
Gutierrez lied during his testimony at trial. In addition, the trial
court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 301 that, “[e]xcept
for the testimony of Efren Gutierrez, which requires supporting
evidence, the testimony of only one witness can prove any fact.”
~(CT 127)~ Multiple eyewitnesses identified Zamora as the
shooter.
       Neither Zamora nor his counsel has raised a cognizable
legal issue, nor has our independent review identified any. The
order denying Zamora’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
(See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232; see
generally People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)

                                 8
                         DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

                                SEGAL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

      FEUER, J.

      MARTINEZ, J.

                            9