People v. Urena CA4/1
D079449
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 4, 2022Background
- Defendant Martin Urena (El Hoyo Palmas gang member) was convicted of second-degree murder and felon in possession of a firearm; jury found he personally discharged a firearm; sentence aggregate 62 years 8 months to life.
- At a house party, Urena removed victim Garcia’s hat; a brief fistfight followed; later Urena retrieved a revolver, asked Garcia to "take a walk," they walked into a driveway, and Garcia was shot; no weapon was found on Garcia.
- Key witnesses were inconsistent or hostile: R.B. initially lied but later implicated Urena; C.T. and J.R. gave pretrial statements implicating Urena but testified inconsistently at trial.
- Defense offered a ballistics/reconstruction expert who opined it was possible Garcia was bent over or moving forward when shot, supporting a possible (but speculative) self-defense theory.
- Trial court instructed on self-defense and gave CALCRIM No. 3471 (mutual combat/initial aggressor). Defense agreed to instructions.
- On appeal the court held CALCRIM No. 3471 was unsupported by substantial evidence but any error was harmless; ineffective-assistance claim failed for lack of prejudice; remanded for resentencing consideration under Senate Bill No. 1393.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CALCRIM No. 3471 (mutual combat/initial aggressor) was supported by substantial evidence | Court correctly instructed; evidence showed Urena instigated conduct and led Garcia away | No substantial evidence Urena "started the fight" or engaged in mutual combat; instruction inapplicable | Instruction lacked evidentiary support but error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether court erred by not defining "starts a fight" sua sponte | No separate definition required; jury given ordinary-meaning guidance | Failure to define could mislead jury to treat verbal provocation as "starts a fight" | No prejudicial error; jury presumed to follow instructions including ordinary-meaning guidance |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to CALCRIM No. 3471 or request definition | No basis to object; counsel’s choice was reasonable | Counsel should have objected/requested a definition | Denied — even if performance arguable deficient, defendant failed to show prejudice under Strickland |
| Whether remand for resentencing is required under SB 1393 (striking serious‑felony enhancement) | Remand unnecessary because trial court indicated it would not strike enhancement | SB 1393 authorizes courts to strike prior serious-felony enhancements; remand may not be futile | Remand ordered so trial court can exercise informed discretion under SB 1393 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Posey, 32 Cal.4th 193 (de novo review of jury instructions)
- People v. Gutierrez, 45 Cal.4th 789 (trial court duty to instruct sua sponte on self-defense when supported)
- People v. Guiton, 4 Cal.4th 1116 (error to give instruction that has no application to the facts)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless error standard: beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (SB 1393 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Fuiava, 53 Cal.4th 622 (presumption that jurors follow instructions)