People v. De La Rosa CA3, C098721

Victor De La Rosa was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing Roy Jimmerson after an altercation in 2020.
De La Rosa claimed he acted after Jimmerson threatened him and his family, and Jimmerson appeared to reach into his waistband.
The jury also found true a firearm enhancement allegation, which increased De La Rosa's sentence.
At sentencing, De La Rosa requested that the most severe firearm enhancement be struck and replaced with a lesser, uncharged enhancement, but the trial court believed it could not do so under current law.
De La Rosa appealed, challenging both the jury instructions given on murder/manslaughter and the trial court’s understanding of its sentencing discretion as to the firearm enhancement.

Issue	De La Rosa's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Accuracy of jury instructions on manslaughter/murder	Instructions misstated law by making murder the default and reducing it to manslaughter, improperly shifting the burden to defendant	Instructions were proper and consistent with longstanding precedent and Supreme Court guidance	Instructions were correct under established law; challenge rejected
Sentencing discretion for firearm enhancement	Trial court had legal authority to strike severe enhancement and impose a lesser included, uncharged enhancement	Agreed; Supreme Court clarified courts have this authority post-sentencing	Court erred in finding it lacked authority; case remanded for resentencing

People v. Schuller, 15 Cal.5th 237 (Cal. 2023) (explains heat of passion and imperfect self-defense negate malice and reduce murder to manslaughter)
People v. Tirado, 12 Cal.5th 688 (Cal. 2022) (trial court may strike a severe firearm enhancement and impose a lesser included enhancement)
People v. McDavid, 15 Cal.5th 1015 (Cal. 2024) (clarifies trial courts may impose lesser uncharged enhancements under different statutes)
People v. Parker, 13 Cal.5th 1 (Cal. 2022) (rejects the same jury instruction challenge raised here)