Court Opinion

ID: 9926838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-25 19:02:35.215152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:02.525181
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/25/24 P. v. Raynoha 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D082107

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD173300)

 DAVID A. RAYNOHA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.
         Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2005, David Raynoha pleaded guilty to one count of second degree

murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to an indeterminate
term of 15 years to life in prison.

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
      In 2020, Raynoha filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.
The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, received
briefing, and held a hearing. The court concluded Raynoha was not eligible
for relief under the statute and denied the petition without issuing an order
to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.
      Raynoha appealed and this court reversed the trial court’s decision in
an unpublished opinion and remanded the case with directions to issue an
order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. (People v. Raynoha
(D078748, April 19, 2022).)
      On remand, the court held a contested evidentiary hearing. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the
prosecution proved Raynoha was guilty of murder under the current state of
the law. As such, the court concluded Raynoha was a major participant who
acted with reckless disregard for human life. The court denied the petition.
      Raynoha filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious, or arguable issues for reversal on
appeal. Counsel contends this appeal should not be limited to the review
process of Delgadillo, since it follows an evidentiary hearing. Instead,
counsel argues we should independently review the record for error as
establish by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel invites
the court to distinguish this case from Delgadillo. We decline the invitation
to discuss the scope of the court’s opinion in Delgadillo. In that case the court
authorized appellate courts to exercise their discretion to conduct a Wende
review where the court’s find it appropriate. We have elected to exercise our
discretion to independently review the record following the guidelines

                                       2
established in Wende. Further discussion of the scope of Delgadillo’s review
is not necessary.
        We offered Raynoha the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but
he has not responded.
                            STATEMENT OF FACTS
        In our prior opinion we included a summary of the facts of the
underlying offenses committed in this case. We will include that summary
here:
        Raynoha planned with James Torkelson, Max Anderson, and Jeffrey
Young to commit a robbery at the Five Star Shuttle & Fly. On the evening of
July 17, 1999, Anderson drove his truck with Raynoha, Torkelson, and Young
riding as passengers to conduct reconnaissance and execute the robbery.
        On the morning of July 18, 1999, Raynoha was armed with a 9-
millimeter gun to commit the robbery. Anderson had two 9-millimeter guns
and Young a .38 caliber weapon. The three men followed Torkelson and met
at the parking lot. Raynoha, Anderson, and Young laid down in the back of
Torkelson’s Toyota 4-Runner as Torkelson drove into the parking lot.
        As instructed by Torkelson, Raynoha was armed as he encountered the
security guard and took him down to the ground while Anderson and Young
entered the office trailer to take money from the safe. Anderson and Young
ordered the persons inside the trailer to get down on the ground. Teresa P.
came out of the bathroom; Raynoha intercepted her and sent her into the
office trailer. When Teresa opened the door, Raynoha saw Anderson in the
far room and Young standing by the door. Young got Teresa down on the

                                        3
floor, the door closed, and Raynoha heard gunshots fired. Raynoha later

learned that Young shot Teresa and Anderson shot a male victim.2
      Raynoha was outside holding the security guard on the ground when
the shootings occurred. Raynoha saw a van driving in the parking lot, and he
hid behind a booth. Young and Anderson exited the trailer, saw the van, and
started shooting at it. Raynoha went around the booth and began shooting at
the van.
      After the van drove away, Raynoha, Anderson, and Young ran towards
a parked car that Torkelson had told them was supposed to belong to the man
in the trailer who always parked in that space. Anderson went to the driver’s
side door, and Young to the left rear door to try to enter the car. Raynoha
became impatient, shot the front passenger window, opened the door, and
unlocked the doors for the others to enter. The keys they took from the man
did not work, so everybody got out of the car and started running.
      Young was in the lead, followed by Anderson, and then Raynoha.
Anderson yelled that he dropped his gun. Raynoha stopped and returned to
retrieve the gun. He then fired three rounds over the trailer to make sure
that any persons inside the trailer would stay down and not use the
telephone.
      Raynoha held the gun he picked up as he continued to run. He caught
up to Anderson and gave him the gun. As they crossed the street, Raynoha
saw headlights and he ran towards the driver’s side of the car. Raynoha saw
a man standing at the back of the car. Raynoha lifted his gun and told the
man to get away from the car. The man turned around and said, “Take it.”
Raynoha entered the driver’s side and he saw another man standing nearby.

2     Teresa was the murder victim in count 1, and Jack R. the murder
victim in count 2.
                                       4
Anderson stood by the passenger’s side of the car, aimed his gun at one of the
men, and told Raynoha to open the door. Raynoha opened the passenger
door, and Anderson entered the car. “Basically, [Raynoha] carjacked whose
ever car it was.”
      Raynoha drove the car up a hill where Young was running on the
center of the road. Raynoha stopped the car, and Young turned around and
entered in the backseat area of the car. Raynoha drove the car towards the
area where Torkelson’s truck was parked as the get-away vehicle.
      After reaching Torkelson’s truck, Raynoha, Anderson, and Young
entered the truck, and they drove away from the scene. They drove the truck
and parked it outside of Torkelson’s home in the Tierrasanta area of San
Diego where they split the money. They put Torkelson’s share inside a box
and left it at the front yard of the residence.
                                  DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Delgadillo and asks the court to independently review the record for error.
To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue which
was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this opinion: Whether
there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding
that Raynoha acted with reckless indifference to life.
      We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for
error consistent with the process mandated by Wende and Anders. We have
not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent
counsel has represented Raynoha on this appeal.

                                         5
                              DISPOSITION
      The order denying Raynoha’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                             HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                     6