Court Opinion

ID: 9378282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 21:03:12.099457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:19.961189
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/9/23 P. v. Murrillo CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079731

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. 16CR033451)

 RANDY MAURICIO MURRILLO,                                                OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Alexander R.

Martinez, Judge. Affirmed.

         Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Defendant and appellant Randy Mauricio Murrillo appeals from a final judgment

following a plea of guilty, based on the sentence imposed or other matters occurring after

the plea. For the reasons set forth post, we affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                                 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

          Defendant and appellant Randy Mauricio Murrillo appeals from a final judgment

following a plea of guilty, based on the sentence imposed or other matters occurring after

the plea (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3); Pen. Code,1 § 1237, subd. (b)). We

affirm.

          On November 13, 2017, an information charged defendant with one count of

murder (§ 187, subd. (a) (count 1)) and alleged enhancements for the personal use of a

firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), personally and intentionally discharging a firearm

(§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and personally and intentionally discharging a firearm and

proximately causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).

          On July 27, 2022, the information was amended to add one count of voluntary

manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a) (count 2)), to allege an enhancement for personal use of a

firearm (§ 12022.5), and to allege that the crime involved great violence, a circumstance

in aggravation that justifies the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the

middle term (§ 1170, subd. (b)(2)).

          Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled guilty2 to count 2, admitted

the firearm enhancement, and stipulated that an aggravated term is justified because the

crime involved great violence. In addition, defendant signed a plea addendum admitting

          1   All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

          The trial court’s minutes state that the defendant pled no contest to count 2, but
          2
both the reporter’s transcript of the plea hearing and the signed plea declaration indicate
that the defendant pled guilty.

                                                 2
that the provisions of former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) “would not apply because

the Defendant was the actual shooter and acted with the intent to kill.” After accepting

the defendant’s plea, the trial court dismissed count 1.

       On September 2, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant pursuant to the plea

agreement to an aggregate state prison term of 21 years, consisting of the upper term of

11 years for voluntary manslaughter and a consecutive 10 years for the personal use of a

firearm.

       In addition, the court imposed a court construction fee of $30 (Gov. Code,

§ 70373), a court operations fee of $40 (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a restitution fine of $300

(Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a parole revocation restitution fine of $300, stayed

(Pen. Code, § 1202.45). The trial court also ordered defendant to pay victim restitution to

the California Victims Compensation Board in the amount of $7,499.98 (Pen. Code,

§ 1202.4, subd. (f)).

       The court awarded defendant a total of 2,579 days of presentence custody credit,

consisting of 2,243 days of actual time and an additional 336 days of conduct credit

(§ 2933.1).

       On September 6 and September 15, 2022, defendant timely filed notices of appeal.

The trial court denied both of defendant’s requests for certificates of probable cause.

                                              3
                      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       According to the police report3, on the night of July 11, 2016, officers responding

to a robbery alarm at the “Office Bar”4 in San Bernardino found the victim, James W.,

lying on the sidewalk with gunshot wounds to his upper torso. He was pronounced dead

at the scene. Officers learned there had been a fight in the bar that escalated into the

shooting, which occurred just outside the doorway of the bar. Three spent cartridge

casings were recovered from the parking lot.

       Witnesses told police that the victim had been involved in a fight with three

Hispanic males, one of whom hit the victim with a glass object which broke and cut the

victim causing him to bleed from the forehead.

       A uniformed security guard attempted to break up the fight and deployed a Taser

on the victim, but it had no effect. The fight moved toward the door. As the men were

exiting the bar, three gunshots were heard. The victim ran through the parking lot and

south on E street, where he fell and died from his injuries. Two of the men he had been

fighting with were seen leaving in an older Cadillac, and the shooter was seen driving

away in a white SUV.

       Most of the fight and the shooting was captured on the bar’s video security

system. Officers reviewing the recordings identified several of the participants, including

the defendant. Just prior to the shooting, the defendant can be seen on the video

       3 At the plea hearing, the parties stipulated that the facts contained in the police
report provide a factual basis for the defendant’s plea.

       4   Also referred to as the “Office Saloon.” Hereafter, “Office Bar.”

                                              4
displaying the handgun to another member of the group. A former bartender who had

been drinking with the group earlier in the evening was seen on the video talking and

dancing with the defendant. She told police that she didn’t know him or his name but

was able to confirm the defendant’s identity by his photograph.

       On July 13, 2016, a warrant was obtained, and defendant was arrested while

leaving his residence in a white SUV. The defendant told police that he was at the Office

Bar that night with several friends, and they were drinking heavily. The defendant said

that one of his friends got into a fight, and he assisted his friend until a security guard

deployed a Taser. The defendant said he followed as the fight moved outside to the

parking lot, but he could not remember what happened after that. He said he was too

drunk and “ ‘blacked out.’ ”

                                       DISCUSSION

       After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) setting

forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and

has requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders,

counsel identified the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for

error: “Whether [defendant]’s sentence is authorized under Penal Code section[s] 1170,

subdivision (b) and 1385, subdivision (c)?”

                                               5
       We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he

has not done so.

       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s

attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue

exists. (Id. at p. 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

                                     DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                               MILLER
                                                                                           J.
We concur:

RAMIREZ
                       P. J.

FIELDS
                          J.

                                             6