Court Opinion

ID: 9368693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 18:03:44.199588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:09.582871
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/3/23 P. v. Lopez CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F082551
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. PCF373225)
                    v.
                                                                          MODIFICATION OF OPINION
 EDDIE AYON LOPEZ,                                                        AND DENIAL OF REHEARING
                                                                          [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
           Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

       It is ordered that the opinion herein filed on January 17, 2023, be modified as
follows:

         1. On page 20, insert the following at the end of the first partial paragraph:

         (See People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 886 [the trial court must give jury
         instructions, upon request, “ ‘that “pinpoint[] the theory of the defense” ’ ”].)

         2. On page 20, strike the first full paragraph preceding the heading “ii.
            Prejudice” and replace it with the following:

                  Based upon the nature of his arguments, Lopez appears to advance a
              new theory supporting his request for CALCRIM No. 627 on appeal,
              adopting the theory discussed by the trial court in McCarrick. We will
              presume, without deciding, that the record contains substantial evidence
              to support the requested instruction upon this theory, and that the trial
              court erred by refusing the requested instruction. For the reasons
              discussed below, we conclude that Lopez has failed to show prejudice
              from the trial court’s presumed error.
     3. On page 23, in the second sentence of the second paragraph, strike the words
        “was unable” and insert “failed” in their place so the sentence reads as follows:

        While Lopez was demonstrating bizarre and impulsive behavior, there is
        insufficient evidence to conclude that he failed to premeditate or deliberate,
        either because he was provoked to kill G.C. based upon his delusion, or
        because he was in a state of mind that precluded him from forming
        premeditation and deliberation.

     This modification does not effect the judgment.

     The petition for rehearing is denied.

                                                                               SMITH, J.
WE CONCUR:

POOCHIGIAN, Acting P. J.

DE SANTOS, J.

                                             2.
Filed 1/17/23 P. v. Lopez CA5 (unmodified opinion)

                  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

                                       FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F082551
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. PCF373225)
                    v.

 EDDIE AYON LOPEZ,                                                                        OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Michael B.
Sheltzer, Judge.
         Jonathan D. Roberts, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Ross
K. Naughton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-
                                     INTRODUCTION
         Appellant Eddie Ayon Lopez was convicted by jury of premeditated attempted
murder (Pen. Code,1 § 664/187, subd. (a), count 1), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a), count
2), domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count 3), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245,
subd. (a)(1), count 4), criminal threats (§ 422, count 5), false imprisonment (§ 236, count
6), misdemeanor battery (§ 242, count 7) and carjacking (§ 215, count 8). In addition, the
jury found true multiple enhancement allegations, including an enhancement for the use
of a firearm in the commission of the attempted murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). Lopez
was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of life with the possibility of parole, plus 30
years.
         On appeal, Lopez contends (1) the trial court erred by refusing his request to
instruct the jury on CALCRIM No. 627, and the jury’s true finding on the premeditation
and deliberation enhancement must be reversed; (2) Lopez’s sentence on count 2 should
have been stayed pursuant to section 654; and (3) he is entitled to remand for a full
resentencing because of the passage of intervening legislation, including: Assembly Bill
No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 124), Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-
2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 518), and Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg.
Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 567). In supplemental briefing, Lopez further contends he is
entitled to resentencing following our Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Tirado
(2022) 12 Cal.5th 688, because the trial court was unaware of the scope of its discretion
with respect to the firearm use enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)).
         The Attorney General concedes that remand for resentencing is required based
upon the enactment of new legislation. However, he maintains that the jury’s finding of
premeditation and deliberation on Lopez’s attempted murder conviction should be
affirmed because the pinpoint instruction requested was not warranted, and the trial

1        All undefined statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

                                              2.
court’s refusal to give the instruction was not prejudicial. We agree that resentencing is
required based upon the passage of new legislation and will therefore remand the matter
back to the lower court for a full resentencing hearing (see People v. Buycks (2018) 5
Cal.5th 857, 893). We otherwise affirm.
                               PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       On January 4, 2019, the Tulare County District Attorney’s Office filed an
information charging Lopez with premeditated attempted murder (§ 664/187, subd. (a),
count 1), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a), count 2), domestic violence (§ 273.5, subd. (a),
count 3), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 4), criminal threats
(§ 422, count 5), false imprisonment of G.C. (§ 236, count 6), misdemeanor battery
(§ 242, count 7) and carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a), count 8). In addition, enhancement
allegations were alleged for the use of a firearm in the commission of a specified felony
(§§ 12022.53, subd. (b) [counts 1, 2, 8], the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd.
(a)(1) [counts 3-6]), causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (e) [counts 1-6, 8], and
an on-bail enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (e) [counts 1-6, 8]).
       On January 31, 2020, following a jury trial, Lopez was found guilty on all counts.
The jury also found true all enhancement allegations, with the exception of the firearm
use enhancement alleged as to count 2.2
       On February 25, 2021, Lopez was sentenced to a prison term of life with the
possibility of parole plus a consecutive determinate term of 30 years.
       On March 19, 2021, Lopez filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                   STATEMENT OF FACTS
       On November 18, 2018, Lopez departed from his parents’ Earlimart home in his
father’s Honda. Lopez’s wife, G.C., their infant son, B.E., and Lopez and G.C.’s mutual
friend, A.A., accompanied him.

2      Not all of the enhancements alleged in the allegation were submitted to the jury.

                                             3.
        On November 20, 2018, Lopez arrived at the home of Y.I., his ex-girlfriend and
the mother of his two daughters. Lopez left the baby with Y.I. and then fled. G.C.,
beaten, bloody, and in and out of consciousness, flagged down a passing car.
        The witnesses’ version of events differentiated substantially from one another, as
well as their own pretrial statements to police. We do not identify these discrepancies
throughout this factual summary because they are not directly relevant to the issues raised
in this appeal. In any event, we are required to draw all factual inferences in favor of the
judgment on appeal. (See generally, Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557,
564.)
The Prosecution’s Case
        Lopez lived with his parents, L.L. and E.A. in Earlimart. On the evening of
November 18, 2018, L.L. contacted law enforcement to report that Lopez had taken
L.L.’s car following a physical altercation. According to L.L., Lopez appeared to be
under the influence of something.
        Deputy Kevin Flaherty with the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department was
dispatched to L.L. and E.A.’s residence. Through a Spanish language translation service,
L.L. explained that Lopez wanted to use L.L.’s vehicle, which resulted in a verbal
argument that escalated into a physical confrontation.
        During the confrontation, L.L. pushed Lopez to the ground. Lopez got up,
retrieved a kitchen knife, and chased L.L. with the knife to the outside of the residence
and into the front yard. Fearful that Lopez would stab L.L., E.A. threw Lopez the keys to
L.L.’s vehicle. Lopez left with his wife, G.C., and their baby, B.E.
        G.C.’s Testimony
        After departing from Lopez’s parents’ home, Lopez began driving north to G.C.’s
father’s home to drop her off. Lopez had been recently shot at and was concerned for the
safety of G.C. and B.E.

                                             4.
         At some point during the trip, Lopez became angry with G.C. and he accused her
of infidelity. Lopez began hitting G.C.’s legs and face with his fists.
         Lopez subsequently turned the car around to pick something up. He eventually
stopped at a Carl’s Jr. fast food restaurant. G.C. asked A.A. for help, but A.A. refused.
During this time, the child safety locks on the backseat doors were activated, preventing
G.C. from escaping.
         Lopez covered the windows of the vehicle with a blanket or a sunscreen. He
refused to let G.C. out of the car. Lopez told G.C., “ ‘I’ma kill you.’ ” They stayed at the
Carl’s Jr. parking lot for two hours. G.C. told law enforcement that during this time,
Lopez hit her with the butt of a gun.
         During the drive, Lopez choked G.C. to the point of unconsciousness. When they
reached a gas station, Lopez told her to get out, but G.C. refused to leave the baby.
Lopez began to punch G.C.
         After they left the gas station, Lopez arrived at Y.I.’s home in Earlimart. Lopez
went to Y.I.’s home to pick up a gun to kill G.C. Lopez told G.C. that he was going to
leave the baby with Y.I. and that G.C. would never see the baby again.
         When they arrived at Y.I.’s home, Lopez got out of the vehicle and gave Y.I. the
baby. G.C. jumped into the driver’s seat and attempted to drive the vehicle, but A.A.
turned the car off. G.C. asked A.A. for help, but A.A. told G.C. that she could not leave.
As Lopez started running back to the car, G.C. locked the doors. A.A. unlocked the
doors.
         G.C. got out of the car as another vehicle passed by. G.C. asked for help, but
Lopez told the driver that G.C. “was crazy.” The driver left. Lopez grabbed G.C. by the
back of her neck, threw her into the back of the vehicle, and began hitting her. She told
law enforcement that Lopez also hit her with a gun. Lopez told G.C. he was going to kill
her.

                                              5.
       Another vehicle passed by. Lopez believed that the driver was calling the police,
so he fled on foot.
       G.C.’s uncle took her to the hospital and they contacted law enforcement. G.C.
was in and out of consciousness and needed stitches to her forehead and head. She had
also lost a front tooth from the beatings she endured, and she had suffered cuts and
bruises to her arms and legs, as well as a “severe black eye.”
       G.C.’s Statements to Police
       Deputy Eric Barajas with the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department responded to
the Delano Hospital, where G.C. was admitted.
       G.C. was bleeding heavily and was in and out of consciousness. G.C. told Deputy
Barajas that Lopez had assaulted her with the butt end of a firearm. According to G.C.,
this occurred in Earlimart and in Fresno. G.C. also stated that while they were in
Earlimart, Lopez had strangled her until she lost consciousness. G.C. explained that she
was missing a tooth because Lopez had shoved the gun into her mouth while they were in
Earlimart.
       Detective Scott O’Neill with the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department also
interviewed G.C. at the hospital. G.C. told Detective O’Neill that Lopez had started
hitting and threatening her with a brown revolver when they got to a truck stop, possibly
in Madera. He also struck her in the head with the handle of the revolver while in a
Carl’s Jr. parking lot. G.C. stated she was missing her front tooth because as they were
traveling back from Earlimart, Lopez shoved the gun into her mouth. Lopez also hit her
with the butt of the gun while in Earlimart.
       A.A.’s Testimony
       At some point during the drive from Earlimart, G.C. and Lopez became upset with
each other, and Lopez accused G.C. of cheating. Lopez was also very concerned about
G.C. doing black magic that would harm the baby. A.A. explained that she was friends
with G.C.’s mother and knew that G.C.’s mother and G.C. practiced black magic. A.A.

                                               6.
explained that she had received a message on her phone from G.C.’s mother during the
drive stating that she was sentencing Lopez and A.A. to “ ‘holy dead.’ ”
       While they were parked in the Carl’s Jr. parking lot, Lopez punched and slapped
G.C. Lopez also put up blankets and the windshield sunscreen and said something about
“taking care” of them, which A.A. interpreted as a threat.
       During the drive from Carl’s Jr. to Earlimart, Lopez began to say “some really
crazy things.” He was getting progressively more upset thinking that G.C. was into black
magic. Lopez hit G.C. a few times while he was driving. A.A. was holding the baby in
her arms in the front seat of the vehicle.
       When they arrived at Y.I.’s house in Earlimart, the vehicle ran out of gas. After
Lopez exited the car, G.C. got into the front seat and attempted to start the vehicle.
Lopez ran back to the car and pulled G.C. outside. He started hitting G.C. G.C. tried to
run away and flag down a car, but the car kept driving. Lopez held G.C. by the torso and
dragged her back to the car. Lopez eventually ran away and G.C. ran off too, telling A.A.
to take care of her baby.
       The Defense Case
       Lopez testified in his defense at trial. He claimed that on November 18, 2018, at
approximately 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., he heard gunshots as he was driving home. When he
examined his vehicle, he found two or three bullet holes in the side of his car. Lopez, a
dropout of the Norteño criminal street gang, became concerned for his safety and the
safety of his children. According to Lopez, the gang had previously sought retribution
against him, leaving at least 16 bullet holes in his father’s car.
       When Lopez arrived home, he told his father he had to get his child out of the
house. Lopez’s father gave Lopez the keys to his vehicle. Lopez put G.C. and his son
into the car and departed. They drove to G.C.’s cousin’s house in McFarland and spent
the night.

                                               7.
        Lopez denied threatening anyone with a knife. He claimed that he took a kitchen
knife for his protection because he did not have a gun. Lopez further claimed that G.C.
left with him voluntarily.
        Lopez called Y.I. because he was scared something might happen to her or his
daughters. He told G.C. he was going to Earlimart, but G.C. hid his car keys. They left
G.C.’s cousin’s house the following morning and went to A.A.’s house in Pixley. While
at A.A.’s house, Lopez decided to take G.C. to her father’s home in Ukiah. They agreed
to leave that night so their son could sleep on the drive there.
        At 7:00 or 8:00 p.m., Lopez, G.C., their baby, and A.A. left A.A.’s house. Lopez
denied taking a gun with him.
        At approximately 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m., Lopez stopped in Tulare so they could
get food and to visit a Ross clothing store so that they could purchase clothes for the
baby.
        Lopez drove all the way up to Sacramento. During the trip, he stopped at three
different rest stops.
        While at the second rest stop, a man asked Lopez what he was smoking. Lopez
offered the man a cigarette, but the man started “acting up.” This agitated Lopez and
gave him a “bad vibe.” He “felt something going through [his] body.”
        When Lopez told G.C. and A.A. about this, he saw G.C. “smiling like if there was
something up.” G.C. began acting peculiar. Lopez began worrying about his two
daughters after a song by Eminem came on the radio. He looked back at G.C. She had
the baby’s blanket over her head and had “some crazy looking eyes on her face.”
        Lopez then said to her, “ ‘It’s you, huh?’ ” He felt like “she was trying to [do]
something evil or possessed” to their baby. He asked A.A. to get the baby from the back
seat and then he started touching the baby with a necklace of the Virgin Mary, causing
the baby to smile. After that, Lopez did not feel that the baby was safe with G.C. G.C.

                                              8.
told Lopez that he was crazy, but he replied that she and her mother were crazy. At this
point they were “almost close to Sacramento.”
         Lopez pulled over at the third rest stop which was near Sacramento and told G.C.
“to get … out [of the] car” several times. She refused. He told her to stop doing
whatever “crazy shit” she was doing because it was “tripping [him] out.” G.C. refused to
leave.
         At some point after Lopez began to believe that something was wrong with his
oldest daughter, he turned the car around and began driving back to Earlimart, to the
home of his daughters’ mother, Y.I.
         On the way, Lopez pulled over at a gas station and ordered G.C. to get out of the
car. When she laughed, he beat her with his fists a few times. Lopez explained that he
felt like G.C. was “threatening [his] kids.” He denied beating her with the butt of a gun
or having guns with him at all during the trip.
         Lopez grabbed his knife and carved his oldest daughter’s name into his chest. He
thought this would protect his daughter against the “black magic, witchcraft that [was]
coming from the devil.” He testified, “I believed that if I shed[] her blood,3 none of …
[what G.C.] was trying to do was going to touch her [i.e., his daughter].” Lopez denied
striking G.C. with anything other than his hands, and he denied trying to kill her.
         At approximately 3:00 a.m., at a Carl’s Jr. fast food restaurant in Fresno, Lopez
covered up the windows of the car because “[G.C.’s] evil-looking face still hadn’t
changed.” They stayed there for two hours.
         When he arrived at Y.I.’s home, Lopez told Y.I. to let him see his daughters and to
take care of B.E. because he felt like G.C. was endangering the baby with “weird shit”
that he could not see. Lopez then left on foot.

3     It appears Lopez intended to state that if he shed his blood, it would protect his
daughter from G.C.’s black magic.

                                              9.
       According to Lopez, G.C. never tried to flee the car, so Lopez denied dragging her
back into the car. He also denied threatening to kill her. Lopez claimed that he wanted
G.C. to get out of the car. Although Lopez admitted hitting G.C. with his bare hands
while at a gas station, he denied hitting her with a gun or having a gun in his possession
during any portion of the trip. He further claimed that the keys were in the vehicle every
time he got out, such that G.C. could have driven away.
       Lopez believed that G.C. had been cheating on him, but he claimed that this did
not bother him. He stated that he was not going to force her to be with him.
                                          DISCUSSION

I.     The Trial Court Did Not Prejudicially Err by Refusing the Requested
       Pinpoint Instruction
       Lopez was convicted of the premeditated attempted murder of G.C. He contends
the trial court reversibly erred by refusing his request to instruct the jury with CALCRIM
No. 627, which pertains to the effect of hallucinations to negate premeditation and
deliberation. Lopez argues the court’s failure to instruct the jury accordingly was
prejudicial because the instruction would have allowed the jury to find the premeditation
allegation was not true. We find no error, nor error assuming prejudice.
A.     Background
       At trial, Lopez admitted hitting G.C., but he denied attempting or threatening to
kill her, kidnapping her, or possessing a firearm. He also denied being under the
influence of any substances, and there was no evidence showing that he suffered from
some kind of mental defect or disorder which might cause psychotic symptoms, such as
delusions. Consistent with Lopez’s representations, trial counsel appeared to be seeking
an acquittal of the most serious charges by arguing Lopez had only hit G.C.
       During trial, trial counsel asked the court to instruct the jury on CALCRIM Nos.
603 [Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter] and 627 [Hallucination: Effect on
Premeditation].
       CALCRIM No. 627 states the following:

                                            10.
                      “A hallucination is a perception not based on
              objective reality. In other words, a person has a
              hallucination when that person believes that he or she
              is seeing or hearing [or otherwise perceiving]
              something that is not actually present or happening.

                      “You may consider evidence of hallucinations,
              if any, in deciding whether the defendant acted with
              deliberation and premeditation.

                      “The People have the burden of proving beyond
              a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with
              deliberation and premeditation. If the People have not
              met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty
              of first degree murder.”

       The trial court deferred consideration of the requested instructions. At the time, it
was unclear whether Lopez, who might offer evidence that he was operating under a
delusion or hallucination, would testify.
       After the evidentiary portion of the trial concluded, the parties discussed the jury
instructions requested by trial counsel. The prosecutor stated that Lopez had requested
the jury be instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 603, an instruction on attempted
voluntary manslaughter. The prosecutor opposed the instruction because there had been
no evidence supporting the conclusion that Lopez had been provoked to kill G.C.
       The trial court asked trial counsel whether he was also requesting CALCRIM No.
627. Trial counsel responded affirmatively. Trial counsel explained that the instruction
was warranted because Lopez was operating under a delusional belief that G.C. was
practicing black magic, which could harm the children. And, based upon this delusion,
Lopez was provoked to act irrationally and without deliberation in attempting to kill G.C.
The court stated that it needed to conduct further research on the issue.
       When the parties reconvened, the trial court explained that based upon trial
counsel’s asserted theory, it was going to deny counsel’s request for CALCRIM No. 603.
The court observed that “a hallucination[] cannot arouse the passion of an ordinarily
reasonable person,” which foreclosed trial counsel’s ability to argue that the attempted

                                             11.
murder charge could be mitigated to attempted voluntary manslaughter based upon a
purely delusional belief.
       The prosecutor observed that a delusion or hallucination could affect the special
allegation of deliberation and premeditation, and the trial court agreed. The parties
discussed whether there was any evidence that Lopez had experienced a hallucination.
Notwithstanding Lopez’s testimony about G.C.’s “crazy eyes,” the prosecutor asserted
that no such evidence had been introduced. He added that while Lopez’s delusional
belief may have been the motivation for the attempted murder, it did not undercut the
evidence of premeditation or deliberation.
Trial counsel replied that Lopez’s belief “gives rise to a spontaneous act which degrades
the whole concept of premeditation.”
       The trial court turned to the Cambridge dictionary for the following definition:
“ ‘A delusion in psychology is a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is
preoccupied and to which a person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of believes
and lack of supporting evidence. Delusions are symptomatic of such mental disorders
such as schizophrenia, paranoia, major depression, and a psychological condition as
senile psychosis and delirium.’ ” The court denied trial counsel’s request for the pinpoint
instruction, explaining:
                      “[THE COURT:] I think that on balance, the
              Court is going to reject the instruct[ion] for the
              following reasons: I don’t think there was any
              evidence that what the defendant was perceiving is
              either a hallucination or delusion as defined. I think
              that in order to establish a delusion, it requires expert
              testimony. It’s a factual issue whether or not he was
              suffering from delusions. He’s explained what he saw
              or believes what he saw, but what is the proof that he
              was suffering from a delusion and/or hallucination?

                       “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: There is no proof.
              The reality is that if you take the religious approach to
              that, is there actually a devil? Is that a delusion? Is
              that a hallucination? I don’t know. I mean, I’m trying
              to look at it from a perspective of is there a plausible

                                             12.
              explanation for his conduct, and is it covered by any of
              the jury instructions. My position is, yes. The Court
              feels that that requires expert testimony. That’s its
              position.

                      “THE COURT: I certainly -- the reason I’m
              spending as much time as I am on this is because I do
              understand what your theory of a defense is, and I’m
              just not seeing that the evidence is there to establish it.
              I’ve got to make a ruling. I’ve got to get the jury back
              in here. That’s my ruling. Right or wrong. I think it’s
              right.”

       B.     Legal Principles
       Evidence that a defendant was hallucinating or delusional is inadmissible to negate
his or her capacity to form any mental state. (§ 28, subds. (a)-(b); People v. Saille (1991)
54 Cal.3d 1103, 1112 [discussing the abolition of diminished capacity].)
Evidence of a purely delusional belief is also inadmissible to negate malice, reducing the
crime of murder to voluntary manslaughter based upon unreasonable self-defense or heat
of passion.
       Unreasonable self-defense is “ ‘a shorthand description of one form of voluntary
manslaughter.’ ” (People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, 134 (Elmore).) Under this
theory, “defendants who mistakenly believed that actual circumstances required their
defensive act may argue they are guilty only of voluntary manslaughter, even if their
reaction was distorted by mental illness.” (Id. at p. 146.) However, unreasonable self-
defense does not apply “when belief in the need to defend oneself is entirely delusional.”
(Id. at p. 130.) Unreasonable self-defense must be predicated upon “a misperception of
objective [facts], not a reaction produced by mental disturbance alone.” (Id. at p. 134.)
This is because “a mistake of fact is predicated upon a negligent perception of facts, not,
as in the case of a delusion, a perception of facts not grounded in reality.” (Id. at p. 136.)
       Likewise, a purely delusional belief cannot preclude the formation of malice based
upon a heat of passion or provocation theory. The test for provocation or heat of passion
that reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter is objective. The facts and circumstances

                                             13.
provoking the defendant must therefore be “ ‘sufficient to arouse the passions of the
ordinarily reasonable [person.]’ ” (People v. Padilla (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 675, 678
(Padilla); People v. Saille, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1114.) Accordingly, a defendant who
experienced hallucinations or delusions which prompted them to kill is not entitled to a
voluntary manslaughter instruction based on heat of passion or provocation aroused by
the hallucination or delusion. “A perception with no objective reality cannot arouse the
passions of the ordinarily reasonable person.” (Padilla, at p. 679.)
       Evidence that a defendant was experiencing a hallucination or a delusion that
prompted him or her to kill may however be admitted to negate premeditation and
deliberation, as that test is subjective. (Padilla, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 679; People
v. Fitzpatrick (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1295 [whether provocation precluded the
defendant from deliberating and premeditating depends on the defendant’s subjective
state of mind]; People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 329, quoting People v.
Valentine (1946) 28 Cal.2d 121, 132 [“ ‘[The] existence of provocation which is not
“adequate” to reduce the class of the offense [from murder to manslaughter] may
nevertheless raise a reasonable doubt that the defendant formed the intent to kill upon,
and carried it out after, deliberation and premeditation’ ”].)
       Lopez was charged with attempted murder with a penalty enhancement for
premeditation and deliberation. A decision to kill is “premeditated” if considered
beforehand and “deliberate” if resulting from careful thought and weighing of competing
considerations. (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 636.) The required extent of
reflection may occur quickly. (Ibid.) “A finding of deliberation and premeditation is not
negated by evidence [showing that] a defendant’s mental condition was abnormal or his
perception of reality delusional unless those conditions resulted in the failure to plan or
weigh considerations for and against the proposed course of action.” (People v. Stress
(1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1270 (Stress); accord, People v. Bobo (1990) 229
Cal.App.3d 1417, 1434, review granted Oct. 11, 1990 (S016988), opinion superseded and
publication ordered Dec. 11, 1991.)

                                             14.
       CALCRIM No. 627, the instruction requested by trial counsel, is a pinpoint
instruction that assists the jury in determining whether the defendant acted with
deliberation and premeditation when there is evidence of a hallucination or delusion.
CALCRIM No. 627 must be given on request when the evidence supports the theory.
(People v. McCarrick (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 227, 243 (McCarrick).)
       “ ‘In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a jury instruction,
the trial court does not determine the credibility of the defense evidence, but only
whether “there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to raise a
reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citation.] ‘On appeal, we likewise ask only whether the requested
instruction was supported by substantial evidence — evidence that, if believed by a
rational jury, would have raised a reasonable doubt as to’ an element of the crime in
question.” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 583, citing People v. Mentch (2008)
45 Cal.4th 274, 288.)
       C.     Analysis
              1.      Error
       The definition of a hallucination and a delusion is often blurred. A hallucination is
“a perception with no objective reality” or a “ ‘[p]erception of visual, auditory, tactile,
olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus.’ ” (Padilla, supra, 103
Cal.App.4th at p. 678, italics omitted.) Whereas, a delusion is “ ‘something that is falsely
or delusively believed or propagated ... as ... a false conception and persistent belief
unconquerable by reason in something that has no existence in fact [or] a false belief
regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persists despite the facts.’ ”
(People v. Mejia-Lenares (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1453, fn. 22.)
       Lopez contends, and we agree, that there was evidence showing that during
portions of the two-day incident, he was under the delusion that G.C. was practicing

                                              15.
black magic, and that he believed he and the children were in danger.4 He further
contends that expert testimony was not required to establish that he was experiencing a
delusion. The Attorney General does not explicitly contest this assertion. We agree that
expert testimony was not required to establish whether Lopez was experiencing a
delusion.
       “The chief value of an expert’s testimony ‘ “rests upon the material from which
his opinion is fashioned and the reasoning by which he progresses from his material to
his conclusion.” ’ ” (McCarrick, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 247.) While an expert’s
testimony may assist the trier of fact in understanding the significance of certain facts,
thereby bolstering a defendant’s claim that he was experiencing and reacting to a
delusion, a defendant’s testimony alone could be sufficient to show as much. “Even if it
does not inspire confidence, a defendant’s testimony constitutes substantial evidence.”
(People v. Mejia-Lenares, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1446.)
       The Attorney General contends that it is not enough for a defendant to show they
were experiencing a delusion; the defendant must also adduce evidence showing that his
or her decision to kill was a direct and immediate response to provocation, i.e., the
delusion, such that the defendant acted without premeditation and deliberation.
According to the Attorney General, the pinpoint instruction was not warranted because
there was no evidence that Lopez’s decision to kill was a direct and immediate response
to the delusion, such that he acted without planning. Lopez responds as follows: “a
hallucination can exist without creating a provocation, but still interfere with
premeditation and deliberation.”
       Lopez fails to direct us to any legal authority which directly supports his assertion.
Further, the vast majority of the authority we have found which addresses this issue

4     Lopez testified that G.C. had “crazy eyes,” but the record does not permit us to
conclude that he was experiencing a hallucination from his ambiguous description.

                                             16.
pertains to defenses based upon mental defects or disorders, and not simply
hallucinations, which can be the byproduct of a mental defect or disorder. Lopez does
not suggest that there is any evidence in the record which would have supported a mental
defense, such as diminished actuality.5
       Assuming Lopez is correct that no act of provocation is needed to support a
request for CALCRIM No. 627, that is not the defense trial counsel articulated in support
of his request for the instruction. The pinpoint instruction requested by trial counsel as an
alternative defense pertained to a delusion which provoked Lopez to attempt to kill G.C.
As trial counsel explained, evidence of the delusion gave “rise to a spontaneous act which
degrades the whole concept of premeditation.”
       As we understand trial counsel’s argument, if the jury rejected Lopez’s testimony
that he did not kidnap, threaten, or attempt to kill G.C., resulting in an acquittal of the
most serious charges, then it could potentially find he was provoked to kill G.C. based
upon his delusional belief that she was practicing black magic.6

5      Diminished actuality is not based upon a provocative delusion, nor is this defense
limited to the jury’s finding of premeditation and deliberation. Under this theory,
“ ‘evidence of mental disorders is admissible ‘on the issue of whether or not the accused
actually formed a required specific intent, premeditated, deliberated, or harbored malice
aforethought, when a specific intent crime is charged.’ ” (Elmore, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p.
139.) Here, trial counsel did not adduce evidence showing Lopez suffered from an
organic or substance-induced mental disorder which might support a diminished-actuality
defense. In light of Lopez’s psychological evaluation, which failed to establish evidence
of a mental defect or disorder, and his testimony denying that he was under the influence
of a controlled substance, we presume this was because such evidence was not available.
6       Trial counsel technically asserted that the provocative act occurred when G.C.
laughed at Lopez after he accused her of practicing black magic. Thus, the provocative
act was not the delusion, but G.C.’s reaction to Lopez’s accusation. The trial court
subsequently reframed trial counsel’s defense as follows: “your theory is that his
perception that … [G.C.] was practicing black magic was sufficient provocation for him
to act irrationally and without due deliberation in his attempt to kill her … is that what
your argument is?” Trial counsel responded affirmatively but with hesitation, adopting
the trial court’s theory.

                                              17.
       Our conclusion is bolstered by the fact that in addition to CALCRIM No. 627, trial
counsel also requested the jury be instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 603, attempted
voluntary manslaughter. That instruction applies, in relevant part, where “[t]he defendant
attempted to kill someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.”
(CALCRIM No. 603.) Trial counsel was attempting to present an alternative defense
showing that if Lopez had attempted to kill G.C., he did so without premeditation and
deliberation, provoked by the delusion. Because Lopez’s delusion existed only in his
mind, CALCRIM No. 603 was correctly denied by the trial court. A defendant prompted
by an entirely delusional belief cannot, as a matter of law, mitigate murder to voluntary
manslaughter. (Padilla, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 679; Elmore, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p.
137 [“[u]nreasonable self-defense was never intended to encompass reactions to threats
that exist only in the defendant’s mind”].)
       There was insufficient evidence showing that Lopez, provoked by his delusion,
“ ‘formed the intent to kill as a direct response to the provocation and acted
immediately.’ ” (People v. Fitzpatrick, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 1296, quoting People
v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 329.) Although there was evidence Lopez was
operating under a delusional belief during portions of the two-day incident, a finding of
premeditation and deliberation “is not dependent [up]on the motivation for the act. Nor
is the necessary mental process lacking when the considerations reflected on by the
defendant were the product of mental disease or defect.” (Stress, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d
at pp. 1270-1271.)
       Further, nothing within the record shows that Lopez’s delusional perception of
reality “resulted in the failure to plan or weigh considerations for and against the
proposed course of action.” (Stress, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1270; People v. Thomas
(1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 519 [“ ‘A senseless, random, but premeditated, killing supports a
verdict of first degree murder’ ”].) Based upon these considerations, we conclude that the
trial court correctly denied trial counsel’s requested pinpoint instruction.

                                              18.
       Lopez insists that McCarrick, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th 227 supports the conclusion
that CALCRIM No. 627 should have been given. McCarrick is minimally helpful to
Lopez’s argument.
       There, McCarrick killed her twin daughters, motivated by the delusion that they
were in imminent peril of being kidnapped and tortured, and that murder was the only
alternative to save them from a worse fate. (McCarrick, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 244.)
The evidence did not suggest that McCarrick was acting irrational on the day of the
murders, and she had admitted that she had planned to kill the girls two days prior to
doing so. (Id. at p. 248.) There was also no evidence of a specific act of provocation.
However, three mental health professionals that had evaluated McCarrick opined that her
mental disorder played a role in her actions on the night of the murders, and that her
actions were a product of her mental disorder and her defective reasoning. (Id. at pp.
236-237, 240-241.) The trial court admitted evidence of McCarrick’s hallucinations
because, according to the court, the fear induced by the hallucinations could have
foreclosed McCarrick from forming the ability to premediate and deliberate. (Id. at pp.
244-245.)
       The issue in McCarrick was not whether CALCRIM No. 627 should have been
given, but whether CALCRIM No. 627, as given, precluded the jury from considering the
effect of psychotic delusions other than sensory hallucinations. (McCarrick, supra, 6
Cal.App.5th at p. 242.) Whether the pinpoint instruction was appropriate upon the facts
presented was not challenged on appeal. “It is axiomatic that cases are not authority for
propositions not considered.” (People v. Gilbert (1969) 1 Cal.3d 475, 482, fn. 7.)
       McCarrick is also distinguishable from the instant case based on the asserted
defense that supported the pinpoint instruction. There, the trial court admitted evidence
of McCarrick’s hallucinations to show that the fear induced by her delusional beliefs
rendered her incapable of forming premeditation and deliberation. (McCarrick, supra, 6
Cal.App.5th at p. 244-245.) Here, trial counsel’s alternative defense was not that Lopez

                                            19.
was foreclosed from forming premeditation and deliberation because he was in a
persistent state of agitation or fear induced by the delusion, but that the delusion
provoked him to try to kill G.C. Lopez’s assertion that the pinpoint instruction went to
the heart of his defense is therefore not supported by the record.
       Lopez appears to be advancing a new theory supporting his request for the
instruction on appeal, adopting the theory discussed by the trial court in McCarrick. The
trial court must give jury instructions, upon request, “ ‘that “pinpoint[] the theory of the
defense.” ’ ” (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 886.) The court is not required to
give jury instructions that pinpoint any theory the defense could conceivably have
argued. We therefore conclude that trial counsel’s request for the pinpoint instruction
was properly denied based upon the defense asserted by trial counsel.
       ii.     Prejudice
       Assuming the trial court had a duty to instruct that Lopez’s delusion could negate
the deliberation and premeditation required for the attempted murder penalty allegation,
any error was harmless.
       We review for prejudice under the test in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818,
836. (See People v. Beltran (2013) 56 Cal.4th 935, 955 [error in failing sua sponte to
instruct, or to instruct fully, on all lesser included offenses and theories thereof is
reviewed for prejudice under the test in Watson].) Under Watson, “ ‘defendant must
show it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have been obtained absent
the error.’ ” (Ibid.) “Further, the Watson test for harmless error ‘focuses not on what a
reasonable jury could do, but what such a jury is likely to have done in the absence of the
error under consideration. In making that evaluation, an appellate court may consider,
among other things, whether the evidence supporting the existing jud gment is so
relatively strong, and the evidence supporting a different outcome is so comparatively
weak, that there is no reasonable probability the error of which the defendant complains
affected the result.’ ” (Id. at p. 956.)

                                              20.
       The prosecutor asserted that the motive for the attempted murder and other crimes
perpetrated by Lopez was based upon Lopez’s belief that G.C. was cheating on him.
Trial counsel argued that the motive for any crimes that may have occurred “had
something to do with black magic.” Assuming Lopez’s motivation for the attempted
murder was based entirely upon his delusional belief that G.C. was practicing black
magic that could harm the children, that did not foreclose the jury from finding he acted
with premeditation and deliberation. A defendant can still premeditate and deliberate
within the context of a delusion:

              “ ‘A finding of deliberation and premeditation is not
              negated by evidence a defendant’s mental condition
              was abnormal or his perception of reality delusional
              unless those conditions resulted in the failure to plan or
              weigh considerations for and against the proposed
              course of action. The mental process necessary for a
              finding of deliberation and premeditation is not
              dependent on the motivation for the act. Nor is the
              necessary mental process lacking when the
              considerations reflected on by the defendant were the
              product of mental disease or defect.’ ” (Stress, supra,
              205 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1270-1271.) (Emphasis added.)

       “[D]eliberation exists even if the considerations that the defendant weighs are
irrational or insane.” (Maria v. Muniz (9th Cir. 2017) 704 Fed.Appx. 641, 643; People v.
Bobo, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at p. 1435, review granted Oct. 11, 1990 (S016988),
opinion superseded and publication ordered Dec. 11, 1991 [“a delusional, psychotic
system can be compatible with the premeditation and deliberation required for a first
degree murder”].) The question is whether the delusion precluded the defendant from
deliberating. (People v. Fitzpatrick, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 1295.)7

7       In the same vein, the fact that the defendant has a mental disorder or defect is not
sufficient, alone, to negate premeditation and deliberation. For example, certain mental
diseases or defects, such as paranoid schizophrenia, can impair the ability to premeditate
and deliberate because it profoundly affects the afflicted person’s perception of reality
and causes a disorganized and confused thought process. However, a person afflicted

                                             21.
       Contrary to Lopez’s assertion, People v. Stress, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d 1259 is
instructive. In Stress, the defendant suffered from a paranoid delusional psychosis. (Id.
at p. 1266.) Stress became obsessed with a delusional belief that professional athletic
leagues were conspiring with television networks and the federal government to prevent
professional athletes from being drafted into service in Vietnam. He killed his wife so
that he could gain the national platform he needed to expose the conspiracy. (Id. at pp.
1262-1263.) Despite the existence of evidence showing Stress suffered from a paranoid
disorder, the appellate court found strong evidence showing Stress had willfully,
deliberately, and with premeditation, killed his wife. (Id. at pp. 1264-1265, 1267.)
       Here, as in Stress, although Lopez was delusional and his behavior was erratic,
there was evidence of premeditation and deliberation. As the prosecutor explained in
closing argument, “[Lopez] had several hours to deliberate, plan, and put his plan into
action.” During the car ride, Lopez told G.C. he was going to “take [her] life,” that he
was going to leave the baby with Y.I., and G.C. “was never going to see him again.” He
also shoved a gun into G.C.’s mouth and strangled her, he kept her locked in the vehicle,
and he beat her so severely that she lost a tooth, needed stitches, and was in and out of
consciousness.
       Lopez told G.C. he was going to Y.I.’s house to retrieve a gun “[t]o kill [her].”
When he arrived at Y.I.’s house, he handed the baby to Y.I. Lopez threw G.C. into the
backseat after she tried to flee, he beat her, and told her he was going to kill her. He only
stopped when he was interrupted by a passing motorist, whom he believed, was going to
call the police.

with such a disease or defect can make decisions that are based on reality and act on
those decisions without being influenced by their mental illness. Like a mental defect or
disorder, the fact that a defendant experienced a delusion which prompted him or her to
kill is not necessarily sufficient to show that the defendant’s ability to premeditate and
deliberate was impaired.

                                             22.
       Although the precise sequence of events is difficult to discern from the record, the
evidence adduced at trial does support the conclusion that Lopez made the decision to kill
G.C. beforehand and with consideration. (People v. Lee, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 636 [a
decision to kill is “premeditated” if considered beforehand and “deliberate” if resulting
from careful thought and weighing of competing considerations].) By returning a guilty
verdict on the charge of attempted murder with a true finding on the premeditation and
deliberation enhancement, the jury was persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt.
       Lopez suggests there are exculpatory inferences that can be drawn from the
evidence, showing that “he may have been acting based on a delusion which made him
act rashly and without due deliberation.” While Lopez was demonstrating bizarre and
impulsive behavior, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that he was unable to
premeditate or deliberate, either because he was provoked to kill G.C. based upon his
delusion, or because he was in a state of mind that precluded him from forming
premeditation and deliberation.
       Evidence of the delusion in and of itself is insufficient to conclude that Lopez was
unable to premeditate and deliberate because “[t]he mental process necessary for a
finding of deliberation and premeditation is not dependent on the motivation for the act.”
(Stress, supra, 205 Cal.App.3d at p. 1270.) Thus, assuming the trial court erred by
refusing to instruct the jury on CALCRIM No. 627, Lopez has failed to show prejudice.
II.    Section 654 Issue
       At sentencing, the trial court imposed a determinate term on Lopez’s conviction
for kidnapping (count 2) and an indeterminate term for his conviction for premeditated
attempted murder (count 1). The trial court imposed these sentences consecutively
reasoning, “With respect to the determina[te] term on the kidnapping, the Court is
inclined to impose consecutive term in this matter. The Court, in imposing the
consecutive term, while this all was part of the same transaction and occurrence, the
actual assault itself, in the Court’s view at least, was separate from the kidnap itself.”
With the exception of counts 1, 2, and 8, all counts were stayed pursuant to section 654.

                                              23.
       Lopez asserts that his punishment for kidnapping and attempted murder was
prohibited under section 654, because the two crimes were an indivisible course of
conduct, with a single criminal intent. In part III of this opinion, post, we conclude that
resentencing is required based upon the enactment of new legislation. In light of our
conclusion, we need not address Lopez’s argument that his sentence for kidnapping on
count 2 must be stayed under section 654. The parties will have the opportunity to raise
this issue on remand.
III.   Resentencing is Required Based on the Enactment of Recent Legislation
       Lopez was sentenced on February 25, 2021. He contends that resentencing is
required following the enactment of new legislation that went into effect on January 1,
2022, while the instant appeal was pending: Assembly Bill No. 124, Assembly Bill No.
518, and Assembly Bill No. 567. In a supplemental brief, Lopez further contends that
resentencing is required on the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) applied to
his premeditated attempted murder conviction, following our Supreme Court’s decision
in People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688.
       The Attorney General agrees that Assembly Bill No. 124 applies retroactively
here, and that resentencing is required as to all counts. Consequently, he does not address
Lopez’s remaining contentions concerning the effect of Assembly Bill Nos. 518 and 567
and People v. Tirado, supra, 12 Cal.5th 688 upon Lopez’s sentence. We agree as well
and will therefore remand this matter back to the lower court for a full resentencing.
       Assembly Bill No. 124 sets a presumption that the trial court will impose the
lower term under enumerated circumstances, such as where an offender’s childhood
trauma or youth were contributing factors in the offense. The legislation adds
subdivision (b)(6) to section 1170, which states the following:

       “(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), and unless the court finds that the aggravating
       circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances that imposition of the lower
       term would be contrary to the interests of justice, the court shall order imposition
       of the lower term if any of the following was a contributing factor in the
       commission of the offense:

                                             24.
       “(A) The person has experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma,
       including, but not limited to, abuse, neglect, exploitation, or sexual violence.

       “(B) The person is a youth, or was a youth as defined under subdivision (b) of
       [s]ection 1016.7 at the time of the commission of the offense.

       “(C) Prior to the instant offense, or at the time of the commission of the offense,
       the person is or was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking.”
       (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6); Stats. 2021, ch. 695, § 5, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.)

       Section 1016.7, subdivision (b), in turn, states: “A ‘youth’ for purposes of this
section includes any person under 26 years of age on the date the offense was
committed.”
       Here, the trial court imposed the upper term on count 1 (attempted murder) and
count 2 (kidnapping). Lopez was 23 years old at the time of the offense. He is a “youth”
for purposes of section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). He is therefore entitled to the
ameliorative benefits of this legislation. (People v. Flores (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1032,
1038-1039 [holding Assem. Bill No. 124 applied retroactively to the defendant’s case and
remanding matter for resentencing].)
                                         DISPOSITION
       Lopez’s sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for
resentencing. The judgment of conviction is otherwise affirmed.

                                                                                    SMITH, J.
WE CONCUR:

POOCHIGIAN, Acting P. J.

DE SANTOS, J.

                                            25.