People v. Zepeda CA4/3
G050810
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- In April 2012 Zepeda and associates arranged to meet drug buyers; a robbery occurred and two buyers (Sanchez and Carranza) fled. Sanchez was later shot and killed by a person in an SUV while Zepeda and others had abducted and threatened a third man (Ortega) to locate the buyers.
- Zepeda was implicated by phone calls, by following vehicles, threats to victims, possession of a Ford registered to him, dealer records, magazines and ammunition matching shell casings, and testimony from cooperating witnesses (Velasquez, Espinoza, Ortega) who received plea deals.
- An amended information charged Zepeda with first degree murder (special circumstance: murder during kidnapping), kidnapping for ransom/extortion (with allegation Ortega was confined in a way exposing him to a substantial likelihood of death), and conspiracy to sell >1 kg methamphetamine; jury convicted on all counts and found sentencing allegations true.
- Trial court instructed on felony murder (CALCRIM 540B), special circumstances (CALCRIM 703, 731), and kidnapping for ransom (CALCRIM 1202). Defense asked for CALCRIM 240 (causation/independent intervening cause) and language regarding the felony‑murder logical nexus; court denied CALCRIM 240 but allowed defense argument about causation.
- Sentenced to LWOP on murder and kidnapping, plus a consecutive 6‑year determinate term on the drug count; court imposed and stayed a $240 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code §1202.45).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not instructing on the felony‑murder logical‑nexus requirement (CALCRIM No. 240 / bench language) | People: No error; the nexus was not contested and other instructions adequately explained law | Zepeda: Court should have given explicit logical‑nexus instruction tying the underlying kidnapping to the fatal act | No reversible error. Defense forfeited a ruling; even on the merits evidence showed the killing was logically connected to the kidnapping, so any omission was harmless |
| Whether CALCRIM No. 1202’s use of “substantial risk of death” (vs. statutory “substantial likelihood of death”) violated Apprendi and denied jury finding required for LWOP | People: The whole charge conveyed the requisite probability standard; wording difference was not prejudicial | Zepeda: “Risk” is weaker than “likelihood,” so jury was not instructed to find the higher probability required for LWOP | No prejudicial error under Chapman; the evidence plainly supported a finding of substantial likelihood of death, so the verdict would not have differed |
| Whether the court erred in imposing a suspended parole‑revocation restitution fine (§1202.45) despite LWOP sentence | People: Section 1202.45 applies whenever sentence includes a period of parole on any determinate term | Zepeda: LWOP means no parole, so §1202.45 inapplicable | Affirmed. Because a consecutive 6‑year determinate term carries a statutory parole period, §1202.45 applied (People v. Brasure controlling) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cavitt, 33 Cal.4th 187 (clarifies felony‑murder requires logical nexus and temporal continuity between felony and killing)
- People v. Wilkins, 56 Cal.4th 333 (instruction on elements must be given if supported by substantial evidence)
- People v. Brasure, 42 Cal.4th 1037 (parole revocation restitution fine required when any determinate term includes statutory parole)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (Chapman harmless‑error standard applies to omitted jury findings on aggravating facts)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (federal harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for constitutional error)
- People v. Solomon, 49 Cal.4th 792 (correctness of jury instructions judged from the entire charge)
- People v. Stanley, 10 Cal.4th 764 (issues can be forfeited by failure to provide argument or citation)