53 Cal.App.5th 102
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Late-night parking-lot altercation after a bar closed: Cardenas and companion Luis approached a group led by Armando; a brief verbal confrontation escalated to gunfire.
- Cardenas and Luis were armed; Cardenas drew a 9mm, fired first aiming at Armando from ~15 feet; Armando was fatally wounded; Juan and Chris were also struck (nonfatal).
- Video evidence captured the encounter; Cardenas testified he shot because he feared for his life and intended to hit ‘‘the people who were coming toward him.’’
- Jury convictions (after two trials on different counts): second-degree murder (Armando), two attempted murders (Chris, Juan), assault with a firearm; Cardenas pled guilty to felon-in-possession.
- Trial court instructed on the kill‑zone theory (CALCRIM 600); prosecutor emphasized kill‑zone theory in closing. On appeal, court found the kill‑zone instruction unsupported by the evidence under People v. Canizales and prejudicial; attempted‑murder convictions vacated and remanded for retrial.
- Court held Arbuckle same‑judge claim was forfeited by failure to object at sentencing; ordered limited corrections to abstract of judgment and affirmed remainder of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported a kill‑zone instruction (CALCRIM No. 600) for attempted‑murder counts | Kill‑zone instruction appropriate because multiple shots were fired into the group, proximity was close, and victims were within the danger area | Instruction not warranted: defendant targeted Armando, retreated while firing, and evidence did not show intent to kill everyone in a zone as a means to kill Armando | Instruction was unsupported under Canizales; giving it was prejudicial; attempted‑murder convictions vacated and remanded for retrial |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove specific intent to kill Chris and Juan for attempted murder | Shooting toward victims and multiple shots fired support inference of specific intent to kill | Defense argued lack of specific intent as to at least Juan (e.g., no motive; shot hit foot/ankle) | Sufficiency challenge rejected: evidence was sufficient to support specific‑intent findings as to both victims (so retrial on counts permitted) |
| Whether premeditation/deliberation findings were supported for attempted murders | People argued planning (bringing a loaded gun) and manner of shooting support premeditation for both attempted murders | Defense argued no planning or motive against Juan; Juan merely emerged seconds before being shot | Court found substantial evidence of premeditation/deliberation as to Chris but not as to Juan; premeditation finding reversed as to Juan and may not be retried for Juan |
| Whether Arbuckle same‑judge sentencing right entitled defendant to remand despite no objection at sentencing | People: objection forfeited if not raised at sentencing; no Arbuckle waiver in plea but defense failed to timely object | Cardenas: Arbuckle right is implied and cannot be forfeited by failure to object (relies on Bueno) | Forfeiture applied: issue forfeited for failure to object at sentencing; Bueno rejected; no remand on Arbuckle ground |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Canizales, 7 Cal.5th 591 (Cal. 2019) (clarifies strict limits for applying the kill‑zone theory; instruction proper only when the only reasonable inference is intent to kill everyone in a zone as means to kill primary target)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2002) (original approval of kill‑zone theory as a concept distinguishing primary‑target attempts)
- People v. Aledamat, 8 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2019) (harmless‑error principles for alternative‑theory instructions reiterated)
- People v. Smith, 37 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2005) (firing a firearm in a manner that could produce a mortal wound supports an inference of intent to kill)
- People v. Chinchilla, 52 Cal.App.4th 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (same principle on intent inference from shooting toward a victim)
- People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (Cal. 1978) (same‑judge principle: plea bargains carry implied term that sentencing will be by the judge who accepted the plea)
- K.R. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 295 (Cal. 2017) (reaffirms Arbuckle rule that same‑judge term is implied in pleas unless excluded)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (establishes beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt harmlessness standard for federal constitutional error)