Court Opinion

ID: 9387120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 20:02:33.158581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.494755
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/14/23 P. v. Yzararraz CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D080924

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. RIF2000713)

 FRANCISCO ANTHONY
 YZARARRAZ,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County,
Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed.
         Joanna Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric
Swenson and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
                               INTRODUCTION
      After milling around for some time at a gas station, Francisco
Yzararraz walked up to a man who had just pulled up to a gas pump. They
had only spoken for a few seconds when Yzararraz⎯without any apparent
provocation⎯pulled out a loaded gun, aimed it directly at the man’s chest,
and, without hesitation, shot him once at close range. Yzararraz immediately
fled to an awaiting car with his two companions. The man died of a through
and through gunshot wound to the chest, the bullet perforating his heart.
His murder was captured on video by a surveillance camera.
      After viewing the video evidence, in addition to hearing testimony from
witnesses at the gas station, a jury convicted Yzararraz of first degree

premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found true a firearm
enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). After Yzararraz admitted a prior strike
conviction, the trial court sentenced him to a prison term of five years
followed by an indeterminate sentence of 75 years to life.
      Yzararraz appeals, asserting there was insufficient evidence to support
the jury’s finding that his murder of the man was deliberate and
premeditated. We have reviewed the video evidence and, on this record, we
conclude there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that
Yzararraz’s decision to kill, even if arrived at quickly, was the result of the
requisite reflection to support a conviction of murder in the first degree.
      Yzararraz further contends his case should be remanded for
resentencing because the trial court was unaware of its discretion under
People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688 (Tirado)—which was decided after his
sentencing—to impose a lesser sentence for the firearm enhancement and

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                        2
because his sentence of 80 years to life is unconstitutional. We reject these
claims, too, and affirm the judgment in its entirety.
               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
                                       I.

                                  Evidence2
      At trial, the People presented testimony from, among others, a gas
station attendant, a customer at the gas station, law enforcement witnesses,
a criminalist, and the forensic pathologist who performed the victim’s
autopsy. The jury was also shown video footage from two surveillance
cameras installed at the gas station. Yzararraz did not present any
affirmative evidence in his defense.
A.    The Gas Station Attendant’s Testimony
      A.S. was the lone attendant at an Arco gas station in Perris, California
on the evening of Sunday, February 2, 2020. Sometime at night before his
shift ended, A.S. walked out of the gas station store to take out the trash. He
then saw Yzararraz drive his silver car up to pump number nine. Instead of
pumping gas or going into the gas station store, Yzararraz and his two
companions just sat in the parked car, which A.S. saw as a “red flag.”
      At some point, Yzararraz got out of his car and began walking around
the gas station parking lot. He was “getting really close” to people, although
A.S. did not know if Yzararraz was “asking them questions or anything.”
A.S. saw that Yzararraz was wearing a gray sweatshirt and had a “P” tattoo
on his face.

2     Because Yzararraz’s appeal implicates the substantial evidence
standard of review, we summarize the evidence and state the relevant facts
in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Jennings (2010) 50
Cal.4th 616, 638.)

                                       3
      Sometime after Yzararraz arrived at the gas station, A.S. saw a silver
or white car drive up to pump number five. The driver of that car⎯later
identified as the victim, G.F.⎯got out, and Yzararraz walked up to him. As
A.S. turned the corner with the trash, he heard a “really loud bang” that set
off a car alarm. A.S. immediately turned around to see the victim fall. He
then saw Yzararraz’s car drive toward him, quickly passing A.S. as the car
drove “erratically” out of the parking lot.
      A.S. immediately called 911 because the victim “was shot.” Sheriff’s
deputies got to the gas station “really quick.” A.S. later identified Yzararraz
as the shooter from a photograph line-up, and again in court. According to
A.S., Yzararraz had been at the gas station for “20 to 30 minutes” before the
shooting.
B.    Forensic Evidence
      At 8:01 p.m. on February 2, Sheriff’s deputies responded to the gas
station in response to the reported shooting. They found the victim, G.F.,
lying on the ground, unresponsive with a single gunshot wound to his chest.
Despite lifesaving measures, G.F. was pronounced dead at the scene. The
forensic pathologist determined the victim’s cause of death was a “perforating
gunshot wound of the torso,” and explained the bullet had entered “center of
the chest” then travelled through his left lung, heart, aorta, and right lung
before it exited through the back.
      That same night, deputies found a single cigarette butt in the location
where Yzararraz was seen discarding the cigarette he had been smoking at
the gas station, as captured by the gas station’s surveillance cameras.
Forensic analysis determined Yzararraz’s DNA was on the cigarette butt.

                                        4
C.    The Gas Station Customer’s Testimony
      D.V. and her brother were at the gas station in a black BMW at pump
number seven. While D.V. stayed in the passenger seat and her brother was
outside pumping gas, D.V. saw what turned out to be the victim’s car pull up
to the pump next to them. As the victim got out of his car, Yzararraz⎯whom
she described as having a lot of tattoos on his face—walked up to the victim.
The men appeared to be talking but she could not hear what they were
saying. She looked away and when she looked over again, Yzararraz had
pulled out a gun, “aimed it” at the victim, and shot him. D.V. averted her
eyes because she did not want to see what would happen next, but she heard
the gunshot. When D.V. looked back again, Yzararraz was running to his
car. But before Yzararraz got in his car and drove away, D.V. looked at him
and he looked at her.

D.    The Surveillance Videos3
      A.S. (the attendant) explained the gas station was equipped with
surveillance cameras. During his testimony, the prosecutor played two
videos from the surveillance cameras for the jury. A.S. confirmed the videos
fairly and accurately depicted what he saw happened at the gas station the
night of the shooting.
      The first video was approximately 13 minutes and showed the front of
the gas station, including the pump stations, and captured the moment
Yzararraz shot the victim. The second video was approximately five minutes
and showed the side of the gas station where trucks would unload.

3     As we have noted, we have reviewed the surveillance videos in the
record in deciding this appeal.

                                      5
      In the first video,4 Yzararraz can be seen parking his silver car at
pump number nine. After he and his two passengers waited in the car for a
couple of minutes, Yzararraz and one passenger got out and walked toward
the front of the gas station. Over the next few minutes, Yzararraz walked
around the gas station parking lot, talking to random people. Several
customers—including D.V.’s brother—drove into the gas station and parked
at various gas pumps. Yzararraz’s other passenger got out of Yzararraz’s car.
A couple of minutes later, Yzararraz’s two passengers walked back to his car
and got inside. Meanwhile, Yzararraz finished a cigarette he had been
smoking, flicked it to the ground, and walked back toward the gas pumps.
      Just then, the victim drove into the gas station in his silver or white car
and parked at pump number five, across from the pump where D.V. and her
brother were parked. The victim got out of his car. Two seconds later,
Yzararraz is seen walking toward the victim. Yzararraz walked up to G.F.,
as G.F. walked a few steps toward Yzararraz.
      Yzararraz and the victim are seen standing face-to-face, within a foot or
two of one another. They appear to be talking. About 11 seconds into the
conversation, Yzararraz—without any agitation or provocation apparent in
the video—pulled out a handgun and aimed it at the victim’s chest. One
second later, Yzararraz fired the gun once into the victim’s chest, at close
range. Yzararraz immediately walked away toward his car, picked up his
pace to a jog and then drove out of the gas station with his two companions.

4     The surveillance videos are timestamped and the footage begins at
timestamp 8:45:59 in the first video and 8:53:00 in the second video. There
was no testimony establishing the timestamps were accurate or calibrated to
the correct time; we rely on the timestamps only to demonstrate the
approximate lapse of time between relevant events.

                                       6
                                         II.
                              Verdict and Sentencing
         After deliberating for just over an hour, the jury convicted Yzararraz of
first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true he personally discharged
a firearm in the commission of the murder (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Yzararraz
later admitted his prior 2014 robbery conviction was both a serious felony
(§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (c), (e)).
         At his sentencing hearing on September 17, 2021, Yzararraz requested
the trial court strike his strike prior under People v. Superior Court (Romero)
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The court denied his Romero motion, finding
Yzararraz “has shown increasing violent tendencies over the course of his
criminal career” and it was not in the interest of justice to strike the strike
prior.
         Yzararraz also requested the trial court strike the punishment on the
firearm enhancement. The court denied this request too. The court expressly
acknowledged it had discretion to strike the punishment on the firearm
enhancement under section 12022.53, but stated: “The [c]ourt is going to
decline to use -- exercise its discretion and it will not strike the punishment
[as it] does not believe it would be in the interest of justice to do so.” For the
same reasons, the trial court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the
punishment on the five-year serious felony prior.
         The trial court sentenced Yzararraz to a prison term of five years for
the serious felony prior, followed by an indeterminate sentence of 75 years to
life, consisting of 25 years to life for the first degree murder, doubled to 50
years to life because of the strike prior, plus an additional 25 years to life for
the firearm enhancement.

                                          7
                                 DISCUSSION
                                       I.
     Substantial Evidence Supported the First Degree Murder Conviction
      Yzararraz contends there was insufficient evidence of premeditation to
support his conviction for first degree murder. We disagree.
      In reviewing a judgment for sufficiency of the evidence, we review the
entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine if there
is substantial evidence from which any rational trier of fact could find each
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Rountree (2013)
56 Cal.4th 823, 852−853.) We presume in support of the judgment the
existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the
evidence, and we resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the judgment.
(People v. Jackson (2014) 58 Cal.4th 724, 749.) We do not substitute our
judgment for that of the jury or reverse merely because the evidence might
also support a different finding. (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 849.)
“Because we must draw all inferences in support of the judgment, [a]
defendant ‘bears an enormous burden’ when challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence.” (People v. Vasco (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 137, 161.)
      The unlawful killing of a human being is presumed to be murder in the
second degree, rather than the first degree. (People v. Anderson (1968) 70
Cal.2d 15, 25 (Anderson).) To support a conviction for first degree murder,
the prosecution must prove the additional elements of willfulness,
premeditation and deliberation. (People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 243, 282;
People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 235 (Burney).) “These elements
require ‘more than a showing of intent to kill; the killer must act deliberately,
carefully weighing the considerations for and against a choice to kill before he
or she completes the acts that caused the death.’ ” (Gomez, at p. 282.)

                                        8
Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to show these elements, so long as
it furnishes “a reasonable foundation for an inference of premeditation and
deliberation.” (Anderson, at p. 25.)
      “ ‘ “An intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it occurred
as the result of preexisting thought and reflection rather than unconsidered
or rash impulse.” ’ ” (Burney, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 235.) But
“[p]remeditation and deliberation can occur in a brief interval.” (People v.
Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 863 (Memro), italics added.) “ ‘The test is not
time, but reflection. “Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and
cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 862−863;
accord People v. Morales (2020) 10 Cal.5th 76, 88 (Morales).)
      Under the Anderson analysis, “ ‘[a] reviewing court normally considers
three kinds of evidence to determine whether a finding of premeditation and
deliberation is adequately supported—preexisting motive, planning activity,
and manner of killing—but “[t]hese factors need not be present in any
particular combination to find substantial evidence of premeditation and
deliberation.” ’ ” (Burney, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 235; see Anderson, supra,
70 Cal.2d at pp. 26−27.) Further still, our high court has “reiterate[d] that
‘[u]nreflective reliance on Anderson for a definition of premeditation is
inappropriate.’ [Citation.] ‘The Anderson analysis was intended as a
framework to assist reviewing courts in assessing whether the evidence
supports an inference that the killing resulting from preexisting reflection
and weighing of considerations. It did not refashion the elements of first
degree murder or alter the substantive law of murder in any way.’ ” (People
v. Gonzalez and Soliz (2011) 52 Cal.4th 254, 294 (Gonzalez and Soliz).)
      Moreover, “the relevant question on appeal is not whether we are
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether any rational trier of fact

                                       9
could have been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant
premeditated the murder.” (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1127
(Perez).) In Yzararraz’s case, the clear answer to that question is yes.
      As Yzararraz concedes, “[t]he evidence is essentially uncontradicted.”
In a rare circumstance, the victim’s killing was recorded by surveillance
cameras. A jury viewing the video footage could reasonably see that

Yzararraz walked up to the victim5 and⎯without any confrontation,
provocation, or struggle⎯calmly pulled out a loaded gun, aimed it at the
victim “center of the chest,” and, without hesitation, shot him at close range.
From the manner of the killing, a jury could reasonably conclude that
Yzararraz’s decision to kill was a cold, calculated judgment to kill, even if
arrived at quickly. (Memro, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 862−863; Morales,
supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 88.)
      Our high court has found similar manner-of-killing evidence supportive
of an inference the murder was premeditated and thus of the first degree. In
Gonzales and Soliz, supra, 52 Cal.4th at page 295, the California Supreme
Court found “[t]he manner of killing—a close-range shooting without any
provocation or evidence of a struggle—additionally supports an inference of
premeditation and deliberation.” In People v. Marks (2003) 31 Cal.4th 197,
230, the Court concluded evidence proving “a close-range shooting without

5      Yzararraz argues the video evidence does not show he walked over to
“ ‘confront’ ”the victim; rather it “shows the victim walking towards” him. We
disagree. As we have said, we have reviewed the video evidence ourselves
and conclude it contains substantial evidence from which a rational trier of
fact would find that Yzararraz walked up to the victim. This is also
consistent with the testimony of both the gas station attendant (A.S.) and the
customer at the adjacent pump (D.V.), who each said Yzararraz walked up to
the victim.

                                       10
any provocation . . . or evidence of struggle” supported a conviction of murder
in the first degree. And in People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 348, the
Court found evidence that the victim was shot in the head “execution-style”
at point-blank range, without evidence of a struggle, supported a first degree
murder conviction.
      Yzararraz views the evidence differently. Because the video footage
shows he had “the briefest encounter” with the victim, he asserts it would be
“speculation” to conclude he shot the victim with a premeditated intent to
kill, rather than by “rash impulse.” But although he acknowledges that
“ ‘ “[t]he true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the
reflection” ’ ” (Morales, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 88), Yzararraz focuses only on
the brevity of his encounter with the victim to suggest his decision to kill was
impulsive. He overlooks that the video footage showed that, even in the brief
interval of time, he killed the victim in “a close-range shooting without any
provocation or evidence of a struggle.” (Gonzales and Soliz, supra, 52 Cal.4th
at p. 295.)
      Yzararraz next contends the evidence showed “[t]his was a senseless
killing” and not a premeditated one because there was no evidence of motive
or planning by him. Rather, it was “only a chance interaction between two
strangers at a gas station.” But even accepting the victim’s unfortunate
encounter with Yzararraz was one of chance, it does not preclude the jury
from reasonably finding the video footage of their interaction demonstrated
that Yzararraz had the necessary period of reflection to support an inference
of premeditated and deliberate intent to kill. A senseless killing can
nonetheless be a premeditated one.
      And while it is true the record is devoid of any evidence of motive or
pre-existing relationship between Yzararraz and the victim, such evidence

                                        11
was not required to establish premeditation and deliberation. As our
Supreme Court has repeatedly explained, “[t]he Anderson factors[—including
evidence of motive—]while helpful for purposes of review, are not a sine qua
non to finding first degree premeditated murder, nor are they exclusive.”
(Perez, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1125; accord Gonzalez and Soliz, supra, 52
Cal.4th at p. 294.) Anderson does not dictate a rigid or “ ‘[u]nreflective
reliance’ ” on the three categories of common factors it identified. (Gonzalez
and Soliz, at p. 294; accord Morales, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 89.) Rather, it
provides “ ‘a framework’ ” to assist in assessing whether the evidence
supports an inference that the killing resulted from preexisting reflection and
weighing of considerations. (Gonzalez and Soliz, at p. 294; Morales, at p. 89.)
Here, the evidence of premeditation presented to the jury was unusual in
that the murder was recorded on video. As a result, the jurors were equipped
to see for themselves Yzararraz’s act of killing the victim, and to conclude it
was the result of a cold, calculated judgment to kill. They appear to have had
little trouble doing so, returning their verdict after a little more than an hour
of deliberations.
      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we
conclude substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Yzararraz
was guilty of first degree murder.
                                       II.
                    Remand for Resentencing Is Unwarranted
      Yzararraz contends we should remand his case for resentencing, for
two reasons. First, he asserts the trial court was unaware of its discretion
under Tirado, supra, 12 Cal.5th 688—which was decided after his
sentencing—to impose a lesser punishment for the firearm enhancement

                                       12
under section 12022.53. Second, he asserts his sentence of “80 years to life”6
is cruel or unusual punishment in violation of the Constitutions of the United
States and California. Both arguments lack merit.
A.    The Trial Court’s Discretionary Decisions Establish That It Would Not
      Have Imposed a Lesser Sentence Under Tirado
      In sentencing Yzararraz, the trial court imposed a consecutive term of
25 years to life for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53,
subdivision (d). At that time, the law was unsettled about whether a
sentencing court had discretion to impose a lesser firearm enhancement. In
People v. Morrison (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 217, the First Appellate District,
Division Five, held courts did have discretion to impose a lesser firearm
enhancement, even one that was not alleged. (Id. at pp. 220, 222−223.) The
Fifth Appellate District reached the opposite result in People v. Tirado (2019)
38 Cal.App.5th 637, holding that courts lacked the discretion to impose a
lesser firearm enhancement under section 12022.53. (See also Tirado, supra,
12 Cal.5th at pp. 696–697 [citing cases on either side of split in authority].)
      In 2022, after Yzararraz’s sentencing, the California Supreme Court
resolved the split. It reversed the Fifth Appellate District’s decision in People
v. Tirado, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th 637, and held that a sentencing court does
have discretion to impose a lesser firearm enhancement under section
12022.53. (Tirado, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 700.)

6      Although both parties refer to Yzararraz’s aggregate sentence as 80
years to life, the correct description of the sentence is as we have stated:
five years on the serious felony prior⎯which he serves first⎯followed by an
indeterminate sentence of 75 years to life. (See § 669, subd. (a) [“Whenever a
person is committed to prison on a life sentence which is ordered to run
consecutive to any determinate term of imprisonment, the determinate term
of imprisonment shall be served first and no part thereof shall be credited
toward the person’s eligibility for parole[.]”].)

                                       13
      Yzararraz asserts his case must be remanded for resentencing in light
of our high court’s decision in Tirado. Specifically, he contends it is unclear
from the record whether the trial court knew at the time of his sentencing
that it had discretion to impose a reduced firearm enhancement or instead,
believed it had only the “binary” choice under section 12022.53,
subdivision (h), of imposing the most severe enhancement or striking the

enhancement entirely.7 On the record before us, this argument is
uncompelling.
      Tirado reaffirmed that “a defendant is entitled to decisions made by a
court exercising informed discretion” when being sentenced and that “[a]
court acting while unaware of the scope of its discretion is understood to have
abused it.” (Tirado, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 694.) However, resentencing is
not required where “the record ‘clearly indicate[s]’ that the trial court would
have reached the same conclusion ‘even if it had been aware that it had such
discretion.’ ” (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 (Gutierrez);
see also People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 425 [resentencing not
required where “the record shows that the trial court clearly indicated when
it originally sentenced the defendant that it would not in any event have
stricken a firearm enhancement”].) Such is the case here.
      In his sentencing brief, Yzararraz informed the trial court of Morrison’s
holding that courts have discretion to impose a lesser firearm enhancement.

7      Section 12022.53, subdivision (h), provides in relevant part: “The court
may, in the interest of justice pursuant to [s]ection 1385 and at the time of
sentencing, strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be
imposed by this section.” Section 1385, subdivision (c)(1), provides that:
“Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an enhancement if it
is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal of that
enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.”

                                       14
Although the Fifth District Court of Appeal had concluded the opposite in
People v. Tirado, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th 637, by the time of Yzararraz’s
sentencing, that opinion was no more controlling than Morrison, and the trial
court could have followed either decision. Yet, despite the trial court’s
awareness of its discretion under Morrison to impose a lesser firearm
enhancement, it instead decided to impose the greater one.
      Moreover, the trial court demonstrated—time and again through the
exercise of its discretion—that it had no intention of giving Yzararraz a
reduced sentence. On the contrary, the record indicates the trial court’s
resolve to impose the maximum punishment possible, despite several
avenues by which it could have imposed a lesser punishment. Specifically,
the trial court also declined to dismiss Yzararraz’s firearm enhancement, his
strike prior, and his prior felony, any of which would have reduced his
sentence. And the trial court indicated that it did “not believe it would be in
the interest of justice” to impose a lesser sentence. We conclude the record
clearly indicates that the trial court, in rejecting all possible options for
reducing Yzararraz’s sentence, would not have imposed a lesser sentence
even had the California Supreme Court’s Tirado decision been issued by the
time of his sentencing. Remand is therefore not warranted.
      Yzararraz’s reliance on People v. Francis (1969) 71 Cal.2d 66 does not
compel a different conclusion. Yzararraz emphasizes that the Francis court
found resentencing was appropriate because of a change in the law,
reasoning: “[T]he mere fact that the Legislature changed the offense from a
felony to a felony-misdemeanor conceivably might cause a trial court to
impose a county jail term or grant probation in a case where before the
amendment the court denied probation to a defendant eligible therefor and
sentenced the defendant to prison.” (Id. at p. 77, italics added.) But Francis

                                        15
is not controlling on this point. Later Supreme Court cases have remanded
for resentencing after a change in the law only where there was more than a
mere conceptual possibility of a better sentencing result. (See e.g., Gutierrez,
supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1391 [remanding because trial court was “ ‘unaware of
the scope of its discretionary powers’ ” at time of sentencing where statute
had previously been interpreted to require a presumption in favor of life
without the possibility of parole (LWOP) but where Supreme Court later held
the statute instead conferred discretion to impose either LWOP or a term
sentence].) But here, there is no more than a conceptual possibility that

Yzararraz would receive a lesser sentence on remand.8 Rather, as we have
already discussed, the record establishes the trial court was aware of its
discretion to impose a lesser sentence under Morrison. It nonetheless elected,
in its discretion, to impose the maximum sentence possible.
B.    Yzararraz’s Sentence Is Constitutional
      As to Yzararraz’s characterization of his sentence as cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of article I, section 17 of the California Constitution
and the Eighth Amendment of the federal Constitution, his argument misses

the mark.9

8     Yzararraz also contends that on remand, the trial court should apply
Senate Bill No. 81, which amended section 1385 to enumerate factors a trial
court should consider during sentencing hearings after January 1, 2022, in
exercising its discretion to strike or dismiss a sentencing enhancement.
(Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1.) We need not address this argument, however,
because we conclude remand is unwarranted.

9     We need not consider Yzararraz’s cursory and unsupported argument
that, by virtue of its length, his sentence was an abuse of discretion. (See
People v. Clayburg (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 86, 93 [failure to present
“reasoned argument and analysis” forfeits issue on appeal]; People v.
Sorden (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 582, 603 [“failure to present reasoned
                                       16
      A prison sentence violates article I, section 17 of the California
Constitution if it is “ ‘so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted
that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human
dignity.’ ” (In re Nunez (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 709, 724–725 (Nunez).)
Accordingly, a defendant attacking his sentence on this ground must
demonstrate its disproportionality by comparing “(1) the nature of the offense
and the defendant’s background, (2) the punishment for more serious
offenses, or (3) punishment for similar offenses in other jurisdictions.” (Id. at
p. 725; see also Solem v. Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277, 284, 292 [identifying
similar factors and explaining that “a court’s proportionality analysis under
the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including
(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the
sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the
sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions”].)
Although the defendant need not establish all three factors, he “nevertheless
must overcome a ‘considerable burden’ to show the sentence is
disproportionate to his level of culpability.” (Nunez, at p. 725.)
       Yzararraz fails to overcome that considerable burden. He was a repeat
offender and was convicted of first degree murder, one of the most serious
convictions available. And he committed the murder using a gun, an
undeniably dangerous weapon. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that his
sentence of five years plus 75 years to life, although heavy, violates the
Eighth Amendment or is among the “rarest of the rare in which the
punishment imposed violates . . . the California Constitution.” (Nunez, supra,

argument and legal authorities in support” of a claim of error forfeits issue on
appeal].)

                                        17
173 Cal.App.4th at p. 725 [“ ‘[f]indings of disproportionality have occurred
with exquisite rarity in the case law’ ”].)
      Yzararraz further complains that his lengthy sentence is the functional
equivalent of a sentence of life without possibility of parole. But this fact
does not somehow transform his sentence into cruel and unusual punishment
violating the federal or California Constitutions. “[I]t is immaterial that [a]
defendant cannot serve his sentence during his lifetime. In practical effect,
he is in no different position than a defendant who has received a sentence of
life without possibility of parole: he will be in prison all his life. However,
imposition of a sentence of life without possibility of parole in an appropriate
case does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment[.]” (People v. Byrd
(2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1383; see also People v. Young (1992) 11
Cal.App.4th 1299, 1308–1311 [sentence of LWOP for felony murder in
perpetration of robbery did not violate California Constitution]; Harmelin v.
Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957 [sentence of LWOP for possession of 672 grams
cocaine did not violate Eighth Amendment].) Indeed, Yzararraz fails to
identify any binding authority that finds a sentence exceeding an adult
defendant’s possible lifetime automatically constitutes cruel and unusual

punishment.10

10    Although we acknowledge Yzararraz’s reliance on Justice Mosk’s
concurring opinion in People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 600−601 that a
111-year sentence is impossible for a defendant to serve and therefore
violates the federal and California Constitutions, we need not—and indeed,
cannot—follow it. Such concurring opinions lack precedential value and are
not binding on this court. (See e.g., People v. Stewart (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d
59, 65 [“[N]o opinion has value as a precedent on points as to which there is
no agreement of a majority of the court.”].)

                                        18
     Because there is simply no basis for us to conclude that remand for
resentencing is warranted, we affirm.
                              DISPOSITION
     The judgment is affirmed.

                                                                      DO, J.
WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P.J.

HUFFMAN, J.

                                        19