People v. CortesPeople v. Cortes
We affirm the trial court‘s order.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Shootings
At approximately 4:15 p.m. on February 9, 2005, witnesses saw Cortes driving his car past a liquor store with three male passengers. The car stopped and between four and five gunshots were fired, killing the victim but missing his companion. One witness saw two Latino men commit the shooting. The witness was unable to identify Cortes in a line-up, but at trial the witness stated that Cortes looked like one of the shooters. Evidence was presented that the shooting was gang-related. (People v. Cortes (Jun. 17, 2009, B206770) [nonpub. opn.].)
At trial, the jury was instructed that it could find Cortes guilty of murder as a direct perpetrator or as a direct aider and abettor. The trial court did not instruct on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
In closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury it could find Cortes guilty either as a direct aider and abettor or as a perpetrator. With respect to aiding and abetting, the prosecutor argued:
“There were several people that were part of this incident, defendant Cortes being one of them. And the law is going to instruct you on principals.
“Now, I wasn‘t there. And often we have incidents where if we do have any witnesses to an incident, witnesses see different things, as you know and are aware. They see it from different positions. But you may have incidents where witnesses don‘t see everything or witnesses aren‘t inside the car when things are happening prior to shootings. Principals. So, therefore, you just don‘t know exactly -- or the evidence won‘t show exactly who did what when. An aider and abettor is considered to be a principal. One who aids and abets is not only guilty of that particular crime in which that person aided and abetted but is also guilty of any crimes committed by a principal which are the natural and probable consequences of the crimes originally aided and abetted. That is principals. Talks [sic] about this aiding and abetting.
“The law goes further to define aiding and abetting. A person who aids and abets the commission of a crime -- that‘s done when they have the knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator. With the intent or purpose of committing,
“Common example used is the getaway driver in a bank robbery. I jump in my car, and I throw a couple of my buddies in the car with me. Three or four pile in the car. I drive down the street to the local Wells Fargo. We have our bandanas, guns. Several people with me. Kind of divvy out who is responsible for what. I‘m just going to be the getaway driver. I‘m going to use my car. I‘m going to get those folks over to Wells Fargo. They are going to go in and do their thing and come out. And hopefully everything will work out great. And we jump on the 710 and out of here, and no one knows the difference, and no one catches us.
“Our laws take that into consideration. And aiding and abetting does not mean I get a free ride because I did not break that threshold and go inside that Wells Fargo. I did not take a gun or have a gun and walk up and stick up the teller. I did not grab the money inside the branch and carry it out to the car. All I did is I sat in that car, and I was aiding. I was certainly assisting both by bringing these individuals to the Wells Fargo and then getting them out of there before hopefully we get caught.
“I can use all kinds of examples. The fact is that you can go and assist and do a murder and an attempted murder, and you don‘t even have to touch the gun. You don‘t even have to be the trigger puller. You don‘t even need to be there. The law will tell you can still be a principal and still be held just as responsible under the aiding and abetting theory. You are a principal or a participant and met the criteria. If you have the knowledge of the unlawful purpose, and it was with the intent or purpose of
“Now, whether the defendant Cortes got out of his car and actually was one of the shooters, whether he just stayed in his car, whether he ran to the bathroom or not or drove in his car and got out of there after, none of that really matters. Based on the evidence of this case and what happened, it is clear that defendant Cortes was in his car. It is clear that he was seen by witnesses with other individuals. People see what is going on in the car as far as the bandanas.” (Italics added.)
The jury found Cortes guilty of one count of first degree murder (
Cortes was sentenced to 50 years to life plus 10 years in count 1 and a consecutive term of life plus 30 years in count 2. On direct appeal, Cortes challenged the sufficiency of evidence upon which the jury convicted him of the gang enhancements and the imposition of firearms enhancements based on gang enhancements, as well as matters relating to his sentence. The Court of Appeal made certain sentencing modifications but otherwise affirmed the trial court‘s judgment. (People v. Cortes, supra, B206770 [nonpub. opn.].)
Cortes filed a petition for resentencing under
On July 21, 2020, the People responded to the petition, arguing that Cortes was not eligible for relief because the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences theory of liability for murder. The People attached the prior appellate opinion, the verdicts, and the instructions given by the trial court.
On October 22, 2020, Cortes‘s appointed counsel filed a reply to the People‘s response. Cortes contended that he was never identified as the actual shooter, and the jury was instructed on aiding and abetting, which allowed it to “impute” malice to him without making a finding that Cortes personally harbored malice. Additionally, the prosecutor relied on the natural and probable consequences doctrine in closing argument. Nothing in the record conclusively established that Cortes had the intent to kill.
At a hearing on eligibility on April 20, 2021, the court found Cortes ineligible for resentencing, stating that the conviction was based on an implied malice theory of liability for murder. The court relied heavily on the appellate court‘s opinion, which it characterized as focusing on the fact that Cortes had the specific intent to advance the cause of the gang to which he belonged, and “murder and attempted murder are targets which are the purpose of a gang.” Based on the law and evidence presented, the court found Cortes “could have been, was indeed convicted under the implied malice theory which is still valid.”
Cortes contends that he made a prima facie case of entitlement for resentencing. He argues that, although the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory of murder, it may have convicted him under that theory because the prosecutor mentioned the natural and probable consequences doctrine in closing argument. Cortes asserts that the prosecutor‘s closing arguments were “equally applicable to appellant having the knowledge and intent to aid and abet in an assault with a firearm the natural and probable consequence of which was his confederate‘s commission of the murder and attempted murder.” Cortes contends that
The People argue that the trial court properly denied Cortes‘s petition on the basis that he failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility. Cortes could not demonstrate that he was convicted of either murder or attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine because the jury was not instructed on that theory of liability.
Senate Bills 1437 and 775
Senate Bill 1437 was enacted to “amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the
Pursuant to amended
“Upon receiving a petition in which the information required by this subdivision is set forth or a petition where any missing information can readily be ascertained by the court, if
Analysis
We conclude that Cortes failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief because the record of conviction demonstrates that he was convicted of murder and attempted murder either as a perpetrator or a direct aider and abettor, and not under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or indeed any theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person‘s participation in a crime. In so doing, we decline to address the trial court‘s reasons for denying the petition, as we may affirm a ruling that is correct in
As Cortes concedes, the jury was not instructed on any theory of liability for murder or attempted murder that required that malice be imputed to him. He is therefore ineligible for resentencing under
Moreover, we presume a jury understands and follows the court‘s instructions, and “‘treat[s] the court‘s instructions as a statement of the law by a judge, and the prosecutor‘s comments as words spoken by an advocate . . . .’ [Citation.]” (People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 131.) Here, the trial court advised the jury that counsel‘s arguments were not evidence (CALJIC No. 1.02), and that the jury was to follow the instructions given by the court even if counsel‘s comments conflicted with those instructions or the jury disagreed with the court‘s instructions (CALJIC No. 1.00). The court then instructed the jurors that they could find Cortes guilty of murder and attempted murder under only two theories: that he was a direct perpetrator or that he was a direct aider and abettor of the crimes. The prosecutor made a single comment on a legal theory in closing that was not presented in the case. Nothing in the charges, the instructions, or the balance of the trial permitted the jury to find Cortes guilty on a theory other than direct aiding and abetting or liability as a
DISPOSITION
The trial court‘s order denying Cortes‘s
MOOR, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, P.J. BAKER, J.