Opinion
B325707
09-05-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MIGUEL ANGEL ZAPATA, Defendant and Appellant.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. SA024428 William L. Sadler, Judge. Affirmed.
Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
Zapata filed a petition to vacate his murder conviction and be resentenced pursuant to the predecessor to Penal Code section 1172.6. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that Zapata was guilty of murder under the law as amended by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437), and denied the petition. His appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief identifying no issues on appeal and requesting that we follow the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232 (Delgadillo). Zapata filed a supplemental brief in which he asserts various arguments, which we address below. We affirm.
Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. Zapata filed his petition under the predecessor to section 1172.6, which was originally codified as section 1170.95. (See Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion, we will refer only to the current statutory designation.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
At approximately 12:30 a.m., on the morning of January 21, 1996, Zapata was driving his car with Anthony Sanchez in a passenger seat. Cesar Martin and three others were passengers in another car driven by William Cabrera. Sanchez fired numerous gunshots at the back of Cabrera's car. A bullet hit Martin, killing him. A second bullet hit another passenger in the car, but did not kill him. Sanchez and Zapata were charged with Martin's murder and the attempted murder of four others. The prosecution also alleged certain gun enhancements.
In 1997, Zapata pleaded no contest to one count of second degree murder and was sentenced to a prison term of 15 years to life.
In February 2019, Zapata filed a petition to vacate his sentence and be resentenced pursuant to section 1176.2, which the court summarily denied. In an unpublished opinion, we reversed and directed the court to issue an order to show cause and conduct an evidentiary hearing. (People v. Zapata (Feb. 3, 2021, B304278).)
After our remittitur issued, the court set the matter for a hearing on an order to show cause and appointed counsel for Zapata.
Prior to the hearing, Zapata, through counsel, filed a further "request for relief pursuant to [section 1172.6]." (Capitalization omitted.) Zapata argued that he "was not the actual killer" and, "as [an] aider and abettor[,] [he] did not have an intent to kill." (Underscoring omitted.) Zapata attached to the document the transcript of a January 21, 1996 police interview with Zapata and Sanchez.
The court held an evidentiary hearing on May 27, 2022 and October 28, 2022. The prosecution introduced without objection the transcript of the January 21, 1996 police interview and the transcript of Zapata's April 4, 1996 preliminary hearing. The prosecution also introduced testimony from Ricardo Cardenas (the driver of the car that Sanchez had shot) and Shane Talbot (a police officer involved in the 1996 investigation of the incident).
The preliminary hearing transcript is not included in the record of the instant appeal. It was included in the record of Zapata's prior appeal in People v. Zapata, supra, B304278. On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the preliminary hearing transcript in the prior appeal.
We summarize the evidence as follows: On the night of the shooting, Jesse Reyes, Cesar Martin, William Cabrera, and Eric Huizar were part of a group of people attending a party near Venice High School. Someone at the party who was wearing clothing that indicated he was affiliated with the Sawtelle street gang was "mad dogging" Reyes and verbally confronting him. At about 12:30 a.m., Reyes and their companions left the party in two cars: Reyes drove a Cadillac and Cabrera drove an Infiniti. Martin and Huizar were in the back seat of the Infiniti, which drove behind the Cadillac. No one in the Infiniti had a gun.
Around the same time, Zapata was driving his gray Ford Thunderbird with Sanchez in a passenger seat. They pulled up behind Cabrera's Infiniti and followed it for several blocks to Dewey Street near the Santa Monica airport. Dewey Street is a two-lane street with one lane in each direction. As the cars drove down the Street, Sanchez fired a gun at the Infiniti. At least three shots entered the back of the Infiniti near the license plate and trunk, and at least one shot hit the rear window, shattering it. Another bullet hit the rearview mirror, and two bullets hit the Infiniti's windshield. Bullets hit Martin and Huizar in their backs.
Cabrera, the driver of the Infiniti, sped down Dewey Street, passed the Cadillac, and eventually drove into a ditch at the end of the street. The individuals in the Cadillac took Martin and Huizar to the hospital. Huizar survived; Martin did not.
Police recovered seven 9-millimeter shell casings from the scene on Dewey Street. There were no bullet holes in Zapata's Thunderbird.
During interviews with detectives, Sanchez and Zapata said that, while Zapata was driving his Thunderbird with Sanchez, someone in another car pointed a gun at Sanchez, and Sanchez fired at the car in self-defense. They described Sanchez's gun as a ".38 [caliber] [s]uper." Zapata said he drove Sanchez home and later threw the gun in a trash can.
Jerry Arabi testified for the defense. He stated that on the night of the incident, he and Sanchez were at a party where Sanchez, a Sawtelle gang member, felt outnumbered and threatened by members of the rival Santa Monica gang. They left the party in Arabi's car. At some point, Arabi and Zapata saw each other as they were driving on a street in opposite directions. They stopped, and Sanchez got into Zapata's car.
Zapata testified in his defense. According to Zapata, on the night of the shooting, he was driving by himself to meet his girlfriend when he crossed paths with Arabi and Sanchez. Sanchez asked to join Zapata (who, like Sanchez, was then a Sawtelle gang member) because Sanchez wanted to see the sister of Zapata's girlfriend. At an intersection, a Cadillac and a car Zapata described as a Lexus turned left in front of them. Sanchez told Zapata to follow them to "see who they were." Zapata did not know that Sanchez had a gun with him in the car. Zapata followed the two cars for "like twelve [blocks]" to Dewey Street. When the two cars ahead of him slowed down, he slowed down. Sanchez then fired four or five shots from a gun. Zapata heard a few more shots, and was not sure if some shots were fired from a different gun. According to Zapata, Sanchez's shooting came as a surprise to him and "happened out of nowhere." Zapata then turned around and drove Sanchez to Sanchez's home. Sanchez left the .38 caliber revolver on the front seat of the car, and Zapata threw it into a trash can.
On cross-examination, Zapata admitted that he initially lied to detectives when he told them he had no knowledge of the shooting. He did so "to protect" himself. Later, after consulting with Sanchez during their January 1996 police interview, Zapata "went with" "the story" that Sanchez had shot at the other car in self-defense. Zapata also admitted that he did not tell the truth when he told detectives that he saw a person in one of the other cars flash a gang sign and point a gun at Sanchez. Zapata further admitted that in April 2021 he testified during a parole board hearing that he knew Sanchez had a gun with him when Sanchez entered his car and he knew Sanchez was going to shoot. He further told the parole board that Sanchez did not shoot in self-defense, as he and Sanchez had told detectives in 1996.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court determined that the prosecution had met is burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zapata is guilty of murder under the law as amended by Senate Bill No. 1437. The court based its conclusion in part on its finding that Zapata was "not credible" and "his testimony doesn't line up with the evidence in this case." Zapata also "g[a]ve multiple stories about what happened at different times depending upon [which story] . . . would assist him" "at the time."
Zapata timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, Zapata's appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues on appeal. Zapata thereafter filed a supplemental letter brief requesting that we address certain issues, to which we now turn. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 [if appellant "files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion"].)
Zapata contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the court's order denying his petition. We disagree. Under the law as amended by Senate Bill No. 1437, a person who is not the actual killer can be guilty of second degree murder if, while acting with express or implied malice, he aids and abets the killer. (People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 990; People v. Powell (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 689, 710-714.) An aider and abettor acts with implied malice if," 'by words or conduct, [the person] aid[s] the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act. The mens rea, which must be personally harbored by the direct aider and abettor, is knowledge that the perpetrator intended to commit the act, intent to aid the perpetrator in the commission of the act, knowledge that the act is dangerous to human life, and acting in conscious disregard for human life.' [Citation.]" (Reyes, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 991.) "[I]mplied malice requires a defendant's awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another-no more, and no less." (People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143.)
In evaluating whether there is sufficient evidence to support the court's order, we defer to the trial court's credibility findings and accept all reasonable inferences from the evidence. (People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466, 482.) Here, Zapata and Sanchez followed the Infinity for approximately 12 blocks, ostensibly to "see who they were." Zapata testified before a parole board that he knew that Sanchez had a gun when he got into his car and that "he was going to shoot." The trial court credited this testimony and rejected as a fabrication his more recent testimony that Sanchez's shooting was a surprise to him. Zapata's failure to aid the victims of the shooting, his flight from the scene, and his discarding of the gun also support an inference of guilt. (See People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 329 [fleeing scene of crime and failing to aid victim or seek assistance may imply consciousness of guilt]; In re Harper (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 450, 465 [finding of reckless indifference to human life supported by the fact that petitioner heard gunshot fired by accomplice but "did nothing to aid the [victim]"].) Based on our review of the record, there is sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that Zapata is guilty of murder as a direct aider and abettor.
Zapata further asserts that "there was evidence of [his] voluntary intoxication" that the "trial court didn't believe." Voluntary intoxication, however, is not a defense to implied malice murder. (See People v. Timms (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1302.)
Zapata next contends that the prosecution used "false evidence" because an autopsy showed that the bullet that killed Martin "traveled from right to left not left to right as [the] prosecution stated." Even if Zapata is correct about the bullet's trajectory and the prosecutor's arguments, he does not explain how the prosecutor's statements about the direction of the bullet resulted in prejudicial error.
Zapata further contends that his police interview, which both he and the prosecution relied on, "was a coerced confession." There are no facts in our record to support the assertion, however, and Zapata offers no cogent argument or authority to support the point. We therefore reject the contention.
Zapata next asserts that there were "Aranda issues in [the] preliminary hearing[, which] was the reason why the case was severed." Assuming that Aranda issues were raised during the preliminary hearing and that his case was therefore severed from Sanchez's case, the assertion raises no arguable issue; severance is a cure for an Aranda issue, not a reason for reversal.
Under People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518, generally, a statement by one codefendant that implicates another codefendant is inadmissible in a joint trial; if the multiple-defendant case is not severed, the statement must be either redacted to eliminate references to the implicated codefendant or excluded. (People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 749; People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 43.)
Lastly, defendant asserts that the court "used his personal beliefs" and showed "bias and prejudice" toward his petition. The vague and undeveloped argument has no support in the record.
DISPOSITION
The order from which Zapata has appealed is affirmed.
We concur: BENDIX, J. WEINGART, J.