THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS ANTHONY MUNOZ, Defendant and Appellant.
B283921
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 9/6/19
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court; CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*; (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA110065)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert M. Martinez, Judge. Judgment of conviction affirmed; sentence vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Law Offices of James Koester and James Koester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Yun K. Lee, Lindsay Boyd and David W. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
In an unpublished opinion issued on October 11, 2018, we affirmed Munoz‘s convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements
Meanwhile, the Legislature enacted and the Governor approved Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017―2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015), which amended the law governing application of the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder. The Supreme Court thereafter transferred this matter back to us with directions to vacate our opinion and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill 1437.
In accordance with our Supreme Court‘s order, we vacate our October 11, 2018 nonpublished opinion. After considering the parties’ supplemental briefs, we conclude in the published portion of this opinion that Senate Bill 1437 does not apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments on appeal. Moreover, Senate Bill 1437 does not apply to the offense of attempted murder. In the nonpublished portion, we address Munoz‘s contentions of instructional error and evidentiary insufficiency, and remand for resentencing on the firearm enhancements. Our analysis and disposition regarding these previously raised claims of error remain the same as in our original opinion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Facts
Munoz was a member of the Pico Viejo criminal street gang. His cousins, codefendant James Rojas, and Rojas‘s brother, Jonathan Loaiza, were also Pico Viejo members. Victor Espindola, David Carrillo, and Adrian Perez were all members of the Brown Authority criminal street gang. The Pico Viejo and Brown Authority gangs were bitter enemies. Their claimed territories overlapped, leading to ongoing violence and numerous shootings between the gangs. Both gangs claimed Streamland Park in Pico Rivera as their territory.
(i) The shooting
On June 26, 2015, between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m., Espindola, Carrillo, and Perez, along with a woman named Daisy, went to Streamland Park in Espindola‘s mother‘s burgundy Yukon SUV.
At the park, Carrillo spoke to some men near the baseball diamond. Espindola‘s group then saw a person with whom they did not “get along.” Carrillo or Perez confronted the man, who ran up a nearby hill.
Espindola then drove the group away from the park in the SUV. Carrillo and Perez sat in the back seat, with Carrillo on the driver‘s side. Daisy was in the front passenger seat. Espindola drove northbound onto Rosemead Boulevard, in the far right lane, at 10 to 15 miles per hour, looking for the man who had run up the hill. According to Espindola, his group did not intend to scare the man, but simply wished to determine why he ran from them.
Meanwhile, Rojas was driving his girlfriend‘s blue Mitsubishi Galant on Rosemead Boulevard, with passengers Munoz and Loaiza. When Espindola‘s SUV was parallel with the park at the top of the hill, Rojas drove up to the SUV on the driver‘s side and Munoz and Loaiza fired shots directly at the SUV. Espindola heard six gunshots. He heard his window “pop” and a gunshot hit the car door, and then Rojas‘s Mitsubishi sped off. Espindola briefly continued driving on Rosemead until Carrillo said he had been hit, and lost consciousness. Espindola made a U-turn and drove Carrillo to the hospital. According to Espindola, he was surprised by the shooting and did not know why the assailants shot at his SUV. No one in Espindola‘s group was armed, and they did not display guns or shoot at anyone.
The whole incident transpired very quickly.2
Carrillo was shot in the stomach and underwent surgery at the hospital.
(ii) The accident
Rojas drove from the shooting scene and attempted to enter the 60 Freeway at an excessive speed, causing the Mitsubishi to crash. Motorist Cynthia Arredondo observed the Mitsubishi tumble down an embankment by
(iii) The investigation
Two firearms were found outside the Mitsubishi at the accident scene: a nine-millimeter Sig Sauer with an empty magazine, and a .380-caliber Lorcin semiautomatic pistol, loaded with a bullet in the chamber and a magazine containing five live cartridges. At the shooting scene, which was approximately a half mile from the accident scene, deputies recovered a bullet fragment, four fired nine-millimeter cartridge cases, and one fired .380-caliber cartridge case. Espindola‘s SUV bore five bullet holes, and five bullet fragments were recovered from the area between the vehicle‘s exterior and the interior panel. Forensic examination revealed that the .380-caliber cartridge case had been fired from the .380-caliber Lorcin gun found at the accident scene. Munoz‘s DNA matched DNA found on the .380-caliber Lorcin gun. The four expended nine-millimeter cartridge cases and four of the bullet fragments had been fired from the Sig Sauer gun.3 Two of the bullet holes in the SUV were made by nine-millimeter bullets. A Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap that had been ejected from the Mitsubishi was on the ground at the accident scene.
Rojas‘s Mitsubishi bore no evidence of bullet strikes, and no evidence suggested the occupants of the SUV shot at the Mitsubishi.
(iv) Munoz‘s jail conversation with a confidential informant
On June 29, 2015, Munoz was placed in a jail cell with a confidential informant. Their conversation was recorded and played for the jury. Munoz stated he was a Pico Viejo gang member with the moniker “Lil Scrappy.” He described the incident as follows.4 Some “fools,” whom he believed to be Brown Authority gang members, had been chasing and attempting to shoot at or harm his cousin and fellow gang member, Loaiza. Loaiza was an “ace” and a “straight rider,” that is, an active gang member known for committing
(v) Gang expert‘s testimony
Los Angeles County Sheriff‘s Detective Stephen Valenzuela testified as the prosecution‘s gang expert, regarding the Pico Viejo gang‘s membership, origins, territory, primary activities, symbols, “code of silence,” and predicate offenses.6 Pico Viejo was one of the most violent gangs in the Pico Rivera area. There had been numerous shootings between the Pico Viejo and Brown Authority gangs, and incidents of violence in Streamland Park. In Valenzuela‘s opinion, Munoz, Loaiza, and Rojas were Pico Viejo gang members.7 The gang used the Pittsburgh Pirates “P” as one of its symbols, and the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball cap found at the accident scene was commonly worn by Pico Viejo gang members. Valenzuela opined that Espindola and Carrillo were members of the Brown Authority gang.
When given a hypothetical based on the evidence adduced at trial, Valenzuela opined that the shooting was committed for the benefit of, and in association with, the Pico Viejo gang. The shooting benefitted the gang by showing the community and other gangs that Pico Viejo gang members would “do anything to protect their borders.” Moreover, the gang members were acting together, looking for rivals. Such conduct would instill fear in the community and in gang rivals, thereby making them afraid to report crimes to police, “further[ing] the stranglehold that gangs and gang violence have in the community.”
(i) Testimony from witnesses at Streamland Park
Robert Mendoza and Savaltore Dominic Mendoza8 were both at Streamland Park on the evening of June 26, 2015,9 preparing the baseball fields for a tournament the next morning. Mariah Ginez and her boyfriend were also at the park at that time. Robert saw a male Hispanic walking around the park, apparently looking for something. Shortly thereafter, a maroon SUV pulled into the parking lot. Two Hispanic men exited the SUV and began “hanging out” with the first man at the baseball diamond‘s backstop. One of the men asked Robert whether there were any games that night, whether Robert knew a former Little League president, and whether anyone from Pico Viejo was at the park. Robert said only the Little League coaches were present. The men returned to the SUV. Shortly thereafter, one of the men returned to the field with a baseball bat and yelled, ” ‘Are you guys from Pico Viejo?’ ” Robert and Savaltore ignored them and moved to another area of the field. Savaltore phoned his wife and asked her to call 911. The SUV picked up the man with the bat, and “peeled out” of the parking lot.
Ginez observed a man at the top of a small hill on the back side of the park. The driver of the SUV yelled at the man on the hill, “this is my barrio,” or similar words. The men seemed to be arguing, and the man from the SUV said, “let‘s go one-on-one.” However, the man from the SUV did not attempt to run up the hill after the other individual.
According to Robert and Savaltore, other than the baseball bat, the men from the SUV did not have any visible weapons, nor, according to Ginez, did the man who yelled at the person on the small hill.
Within five to 10 minutes, Robert, Savaltore, and Ginez heard gunshots nearby.
(ii) Rojas‘s testimony
Rojas testified in his own defense. His family had longstanding ties to the Pico Viejo gang. In June 2015 he and his family were living in Bell Gardens. On the night of the shooting, Loaiza called Rojas and said he was at Streamland Park to meet a girl, but did not feel safe and thought it might be a set up. Rojas drove to the park and located Loaiza, who was with Munoz.
2. Procedure
The jury found Munoz guilty of the attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murders of Carrillo and Espindola (
DISCUSSION
[[1. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury‘s finding that the attempted murders were willful, premeditated, and deliberate
Munoz contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury‘s findings that the attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. He argues that the “overwhelming force of the evidence” showed nothing more than a spontaneous and impulsive shooting occurring when Munoz‘s group unexpectedly encountered Espindola‘s group in the SUV. We disagree.
When determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction, we ” ’ “review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]” ’ ” (People v. Salazar (2016) 63 Cal.4th 214, 242.) We presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier of fact could reasonably deduce from the evidence. (People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919.) Reversal is not warranted unless it appears ” ’ “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support” ’ the jury‘s verdict.” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.) The same standard of review applies when the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. (Salazar, at p. 242.)
Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill and commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended killing. (People v. Perez (2010) 50 Cal.4th 222, 229People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1069People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 443; People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 235.) “Deliberate” means formed, arrived at, or determined upon as a result of careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of action. (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1216People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 812; People v. Disa (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 654, 664.) However, to prove a killing was premeditated and deliberate, it is ” ‘not . . . necessary to prove the defendant maturely and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of his or her act.’ [Citation.]” (Disa, at p. 665.) The ” ’ “process of premeditation and deliberation does not require any extended period of time.” ’ ” (People v. Salazar, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 245.) ” ’ ” ‘The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly . . . .’ [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ ” (Houston, at p. 1216.)
A reviewing court typically considers three categories of evidence when determining whether a finding of premeditation and deliberation is adequately supported: planning activity, motive, and manner of killing. (People v. Houston, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 1216; People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26―27; People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th 643, 663―664.) These so-called Anderson factors are not exclusive, but are a framework to guide the assessment of whether the evidence supports an inference that the killing occurred as the result of preexisting reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse. (People v. Gonzalez, at p. 663; People v. Solomon, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 812.)
Here, there was evidence of all three Anderson factors. First, the evidence demonstrated a motive for the shooting. Munoz and Loaiza were members of the Pico Viejo gang, and Espindola, Carrillo, and Perez were members of Pico Viejo‘s “bitter enem[y],” Brown Authority. In his conversation with the confidential informant, Munoz stated he believed the victims were Brown Authority members, who had chased or shot at his cousin, Loaiza. The gang expert testified that gang members are expected to protect their territory, including “eliminating rivals in their territory.” Both gangs claimed Streamland Park as their territory. (See People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 401 [evidence of motive shown where victim and defendant were members of rival gangs, and killing a gang rival would elevate the killer‘s status]; People v. Martinez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 400, 413 [motive for shooting involved gang rivalry]; People v. Rand (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 999, 1001; People v. Wells (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 535, 541 [gang rivalry was motive for shooting where defendant and victim were members of rival gangs].)
Second, there was evidence of planning, in that both Loaiza and Munoz brought loaded guns with them in the car. (People v. Salazar, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 245 [“defendant brought a loaded gun with him to the Beef Bowl, demonstrating preparation“]; People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 636 [“defendant brought a loaded handgun with him on the night [of the killing], indicating he had considered the possibility of a violent encounter“]; People v. Romero, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 401 [evidence of planning shown by facts defendant brought gun to a store and shot victim in the back of the head]; People v. Wells, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at pp. 540―541 [carrying concealed, loaded handgun “is consistent with intent to kill a rival gang member even it if does not provide solid evidence of prior planning to kill this particular victim“].)
And, third, the manner of killing showed premeditation. Loaiza fired multiple shots directly at the victims’ vehicle; Munoz attempted to do so, but his gun jammed. Thus, the men acted in concert to attack their perceived enemies. According to Espindola‘s statements, the shooting was an ambush, and according to both him and Carrillo, no one in the SUV shot at the Mitsubishi or had a gun. This account was corroborated by the fact that the SUV was hit with multiple bullets, whereas the Mitsubishi was not. (See People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 332 [firing multiple gunshots at victims supported finding of premeditation]; cf. People v. Romero, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 401 [evidence of execution style killing, without a struggle by the victim, indicates premeditation and deliberation].) This unprovoked shooting at close range suggested premeditation and deliberation. In short, the evidence was sufficient. (See People v. Romero, at p. 401; People v. Boatman (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1266.)
Munoz argues that the “only evidence” relating to his and Loaiza‘s actions immediately preceding the shooting was Rojas‘s testimony that he picked the men up and they unexpectedly encountered the SUV; there was “basically no evidence” of planning; and the shooting was “spontaneous” and reflexive. Not so. Munoz‘s statements to the confidential informant suggested the encounter was not unexpected: his group went looking for the Brown Authority gang rivals who had accosted Loaiza, or at the very least, recognized them and shot when the two cars passed by. Loaiza‘s statement upon seeing the SUV, ” ‘those are those fools right there,’ ” likewise demonstrated such recognition. The fact both Munoz and Loaiza coordinated the attack was inconsistent with a finding the shooting was unplanned and spontaneous, as was the fact they each brought a loaded gun in the car. Further, Espindola testified his group was unarmed and did not shoot, undercutting the argument that Munoz‘s and Loaiza‘s actions were simply reflexive. Even assuming Munoz‘s group was not seeking out Espindola‘s group, the evidence was sufficient to show that, once they happened upon them, the shooting was premeditated, willful, and deliberate.
“Premeditation can be established in the context of a gang shooting even though the time between the sighting of the victim and the actual shooting is very brief.” (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 849; People v. Rand, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1001―1002 [sufficient evidence of premeditation where defendant committed a drive-by shooting, aiming at stranded persons whom he believed were rival gang members; “[t]he law does not require that an action be planned for any great period of time in advance” and a ” ‘cold and calculating decision to kill can be arrived at very quickly’ “].)
2. The trial court did not commit instructional error
a. Additional facts and contentions
Munoz argues that the trial court misinstructed the jury regarding the mental state required for an aider and abettor convicted of premeditated attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
The prosecutor argued that Munoz could be found guilty of premeditated attempted murder if he personally committed the premeditated attempted murders of the victims, or, alternatively, if he aided and abetted the target crime of firing at an occupied vehicle and attempted murder was a natural and probable consequence of that offense. As to the premeditation allegation, the prosecutor explained, “What you‘re looking at is not just whether the individual defendant formed that specific intent but whether any of the principals, meaning defendant Rojas, defendant Munoz, or the decedent, Jonathan Loaiza, committed that attempted murder with specifically the intent to do so willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation.”
The trial court instructed the jury on attempted murder, aiding and abetting, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and premeditation and deliberation. Consistent with the prosecutor‘s argument, CALCRIM No. 601 stated that, to establish the premeditation allegation, the People had to prove that either Munoz, Rojas or Loaiza, or all of them, committed the attempted murder willfully and with deliberation and premeditation.12
Munoz complains that the jury should have been instructed that the premeditation allegation could be found true as to him only if premeditated attempted murder—rather than unpremeditated attempted murder—was a natural and probable consequence of the target offense of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle. He argues that this purported flaw in the instructions eliminated an element from the jury‘s consideration in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Because it is unclear, based on the record, including the verdict forms, which theory the jury relied upon in rendering its verdict, he contends the purported instructional error requires reversal of the jury‘s findings that the two attempted murders were premeditated, willful, and deliberate.
b. Standard of review and applicable legal principles
A trial court has the duty to instruct the jury on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence and necessary for the jury‘s understanding of the case. ( People v. Townsel (2016) 63 Cal.4th 25, 58.) We independently determine whether the instructions given were correct and adequate. (People v. Ramos (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1082, 1088; People v. Riley (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 754, 767.)
As we explain in the published portion of this opinion, after Munoz was tried and sentenced, the Legislature amended the law as it pertains to the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Sen. Bill 1437, Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2―3.) Because we determine post that these amendments do not retroactively apply to Munoz, Senate Bill 1437 does not affect our analysis of his instructional error claims, and we consider the law as it stood at the time of trial.
Prior to enactment of Senate Bill 1437, there were “two distinct forms of culpability for aiders and abettors.” (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 158 (Chiu).) First, to be liable as a direct aider and abettor to murder, the prosecution must show the defendant aided or encouraged the commission of the murder with knowledge of the perpetrator‘s unlawful purpose, and with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating its commission. (Id. at pp. 166―167.) Consequently, the aider and abettor must have had the intent to kill. (People v. Lee (2003) 31 Cal.4th 613, 624 (Lee).) Second, under the law as it previously stood, under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, a ” ’ “person who knowingly aids and abets criminal conduct is guilty of not only the intended crime [target offense] but also of any other crime the perpetrator actually commits [nontarget offense] that is a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime,” ’ ” that is, that was reasonably foreseeable. (Chiu, at p. 161.) ” ‘Thus, for example, if a person aids and abets only an intended assault, but a murder results, that person may be guilty of that murder, even if unintended, if it is a natural and probable consequence of the intended assault.’ ” (Ibid.)
In Lee, the defendant, who was tried for attempted, premeditated murder as a direct aider and abettor, argued
People v. Favor (2012) 54 Cal.4th 868, came to the same conclusion when a defendant was tried under the natural and probable consequences theory, holding that “the jury need not be instructed that a premeditated attempt to murder must have been a natural and probable consequence of the target offense.” (Id. at p. 872.) Favor reasoned that
c. The instructions given were not erroneous
In light of the foregoing, it is clear the trial court did not commit instructional error. Attempted murder—not attempted premeditated murder—qualified as the nontarget offense, and the jury need not be instructed that a premeditated attempt to murder must have been a natural and probable consequence of the target offense. (Favor, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 872.)
Munoz acknowledges that Favor is “directly on point” and would normally compel rejection of his argument. However, he contends Favor has been undermined by the United States Supreme Court‘s opinion in Alleyne v. United States (2013) 570 U.S. 99 (Alleyne) and by our Supreme Court‘s decision in Chiu.
Alleyne held, based on Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime is an element and must be submitted to the jury and found true beyond a reasonable doubt. (Alleyne, supra, 570 U.S. at p. 103.) The high court explained, “When a finding of fact alters the legally prescribed punishment so as to aggravate it, the fact necessarily forms a constituent part of a new offense and must be submitted to the jury.” (Id. at p. 114.)
Subsequently, Chiu held that “an aider and abettor may not be convicted of first degree premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Rather, his or her liability for that crime must be based on direct aiding and abetting principles.” (Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 158-159.) The court reasoned that in the context of murder, the natural and probable consequences doctrine serves the policy goal of deterring aiders and abettors from encouraging the commission of offenses that would naturally, probably, and foreseeably result in an unlawful killing. (Id. at p. 165.) This policy goal, however, loses its force in the context of a defendant‘s liability as an aider and abettor to a first degree premeditated murder, for at least two reasons: the premeditative mental state is “uniquely subjective and personal,” and the resultant harm is the same regardless of whether the perpetrator premeditated. (Id. at p. 166) Chiu concluded that “punishment for second degree murder is commensurate with a defendant‘s culpability for aiding and abetting a target crime” based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Ibid.) Chiu declined to overrule Favor, distinguishing it instead on the basis that (1) premeditation and deliberation are elements of first degree murder, whereas premeditation and deliberation simply increase the penalty for attempted premeditated murder; (2) Favor, but not Chiu, involved a question of legislative intent; and (3) the consequences of imposing liability for premeditated attempted murder are less severe than for first degree premeditated murder. (Chiu, at p. 163.)
Munoz argues that, in light of Alleyne, Favor‘s reasoning that
We reject Munoz‘s argument for two reasons. As People v. Gallardo, supra, 18 Cal.App.5th 51 explained: ”Alleyne was decided approximately one year before Chiu. Although Chiu addressed Lee and Favor at length, it did not mention Alleyne, or provide any indication that Alleyne had undermined its prior holdings in those cases. We presume the Supreme Court was aware of Alleyne when it issued Chiu. [¶] Moreover, at least as applied in this case, we fail to see how
Second, and more fundamentally, at present Favor remains good law. Our Supreme Court previously granted review in People v. Mateo, supra, S232674, to consider the following issue: “In order to convict an aider and abettor of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, must a premeditated attempt to murder have been a natural and probable consequence of the target offense? In other words, should People v. Favor (2012) 54 Cal.4th 868 be reconsidered in light of Alleyne v. United States (2013) __ U.S. __ [113 S.Ct. 2151] and People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155?” (<http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov> [as of Sep. 6, 2019].) The court subsequently transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill 1437, without deciding the issue. Therefore, the question posed in Mateo remains unanswered. Unless and until our Supreme Court overrules Favor, it precludes Munoz‘s argument. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)14]
3. Senate Bill 1437
Senate Bill 1437, which took effect on January 1, 2019, “addresses certain aspects of California law regarding felony murder and the natural and probable consequences doctrine[.]” (People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 722 (Martinez).) Prior to Senate Bill 1437‘s enactment, a person who knowingly aided and abetted a crime, the natural and probable consequence of which was murder or attempted murder, could be convicted of not only the target crime but also of the resulting murder or attempted murder. (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 161; In re R.G. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 141, 144.) “This was true irrespective of whether the defendant harbored malice aforethought. Liability was imposed ’ “for the criminal harms [the defendant] . . . naturally, probably, and foreseeably put in motion.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (In re R.G., at p. 144.) Aider and abettor liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine was thus “vicarious in nature.” (Chiu, at p. 164.)
Senate Bill 1437 “redefined ‘malice’ in section 188. Now, to be convicted of murder, a principal must act with malice aforethought; malice can no longer ‘be imputed to a person based solely on [his or her] participation in a crime.’ (
Senate Bill 1437 also added section 1170.95, which permits persons convicted of murder under a felony murder or natural and probable consequences theory to petition in the sentencing court for vacation of their convictions and resentencing, if certain conditions are met. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4; Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 723.) An offender may file a section 1170.95 petition if (1) a complaint, information, or indictment was filed against him or her “that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine“; (2) he or she was convicted of first or second degree murder following a trial or plea; and (3) under sections 188 or 189, as amended by Senate Bill 1437, he or she could not have been convicted of first or second degree murder. (
Relying on In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada), Munoz contends that Senate Bill 1437‘s ameliorative provisions apply retroactively to him on direct appeal, and he is entitled to “seek relief through the direct appeal process rather than having to submit to the . . . section 1170.95 petition process.” The People disagree. They contend that (1) under Senate Bill 1437, a defendant must seek relief via the section 1170.95 petitioning procedure, rather than on direct appeal; and (2) Senate
a. Senate Bill 1437 does not apply retroactively to cases pending on appeal
Generally, penal statutes do not operate retroactively. (
A petitioning procedure like that created by section 1170.95 amounts to just such an indication that the Legislature intended an ameliorative provision to apply prospectively only. When the Legislature creates a statutory procedure by which defendants may avail themselves of a change in the law, that remedy must be followed and relief is not available on direct appeal. As several recent authorities recognize, this means that Senate Bill 1437 should “not be applied retroactively to nonfinal convictions on direct appeal.” (Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 727.)
Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, and Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, both created postconviction procedures by which defendants could seek resentencing for offenses that, due to changes wrought by those propositions, might be available to them. (
Martinez concluded the same is true in regard to Senate Bill 1437. “The analytical framework animating the decisions in Conley and DeHoyos is
Attempting to circumvent this result, Munoz argues that the petition procedures implemented by Propositions 36 and 47 are different than that created by Senate Bill 1437. In enacting Propositions 36 and 47, the electorate limited relief to statutorily defined defendants, i.e., those who had not suffered disqualifying convictions, and whom the trial court found would not present an unreasonable risk to public safety if released. In contrast, he argues, the Legislature intended Senate Bill 1437 to unconditionally apply to “all natural and probable consequences murder defendants.” Because no additional fact finding is necessary to determine Senate Bill 1437 eligibility, he reasons, Conley and DeHoyos are distinguishable.
We disagree. As Martinez explained when rejecting one of the same contentions, although section 1170.95 does not require a dangerousness inquiry, neither Conley nor DeHoyos held that inquiry was the “indispensable statutory feature on which the result in those cases turned.” (Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 728.) And, Munoz‘s contention that no additional fact finding is required in order to apply section 1170.95 is simply incorrect.
Munoz‘s citation to a variety of cases in which the Estrada presumption applied is unavailing.18 None of these authorities “involves or grapples with the legislative enactment of a specific procedure for the consideration of retroactive relief of a change in the law. They are thus inapposite.” (People v. Anthony, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 1155 & fn. 48.)
b. Senate Bill 1437 does not apply to attempted murder convictions
Munoz is not entitled to relief pursuant to Senate Bill 1437 for a second reason: Senate Bill 1437 does not apply to the offense of attempted murder. (See People v. Lopez, supra, 2019 Cal.App. Lexis 773 at pp. *24—*28.)
In any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature‘s intent, so as to effectuate the law‘s purpose. We begin with an examination of the statute‘s words, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning, because they generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. (People v. Colbert (2019) 6 Cal.5th 596, 603; People v. Ruiz (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1100, 1105—1106.) If not ambiguous, the plain meaning of the statutory language controls, and we need go no further.
As explained, Senate Bill 1437 amended two statutes, sections 188 and 189, and added section 1170.95. The plain language of each of these enactments compels the conclusion that Senate Bill 1437 pertains only to murder, not attempted murder.
Newly added
Thus, Senate Bill 1437 is not ambiguous; by its plain terms, it does not extend to Munoz‘s offense of attempted murder. (See People v. Jillie (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 960, 963 [“We do not find the statute ambiguous. It expressly identifies the offenses within its scope, all of which are completed offenses. Had the Legislature meant to include attempts among the covered offenses, it could easily have done so“].) Indeed, examining the plain statutory language, our colleagues in Division Seven recently came to the same conclusion. (People v. Lopez, supra, 2019 Cal.App. Lexis 773 at pp. *24—*26.)
Munoz makes several attempts to sidestep the import of the statutory language, but none is persuasive. He hypothesizes that the omission of attempted murder from the bill was inadvertent. The Legislature was primarily focused on the felony murder rule, he asserts, and because there is no
It is true that the various committee analyses of the bill focused primarily on the felony murder rule, but they also mentioned the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (See, e.g., Sen. Com. on Pub. Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1437 (2017—2018 Reg. Sess.) April 24, 2018, p. 3; Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1437 (2017—2018 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 25, 2018, p. 3.) The initial draft of the legislation included the provision that a defendant could request resentencing when the charging document allowed the prosecution to proceed on a theory of felony murder or “murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (Sen Bill. 1437, § 6 (2017—2018 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Feb. 16, 2018.) People v. Lopez points out that a year before Senate Bill 1437‘s enactment, the Legislature adopted a concurrent resolution recognizing that reform was needed ” ‘to limit convictions and subsequent sentencing in both felony murder cases and aider and abettor matters prosecuted under [the] “natural and probable consequences” doctrine . . . .’ ” (People v. Lopez, supra, 2019 Cal.App. Lexis 773 at p. *14 [citing Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 48 (2017—2018 Reg. Sess.) resolution chapter 175].) The resolution “observed that the natural and probable consequences doctrine ‘result[s] in individuals lacking the mens rea and culpability for murder being punished as if they were the ones who committed the fatal act.’ ” (People v. Lopez, at pp. *14—*15.)
Given that the Legislature was clearly aware of the natural and probable consequences doctrine, included it in the 2017 resolution and the original draft of the bill, and drafted Senate Bill 1437 using clear statutory language, we cannot simply assume the omission of attempted murder was a mistake. “We are compelled to add language only in extreme cases where, as a matter of law, we are convinced that the Legislature, through inadvertence, failed to utilize the word or words which give purpose to its pronouncements.” (People v. Buena Vista Mines, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1034; People v. Guzman (2005) 35 Cal.4th 577, 587 [we do not lightly assume drafting error].) Where the words of the statute are clear, we are not at liberty to add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that is not apparent on the face of the statute or in its legislative history. (People v. Lightsey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 668, 692; Guzman, at p. 587 [inserting
In a related vein, Munoz argues that the literal language of Senate Bill 1437 should not be given effect because such an interpretation would lead to absurd results and undermine the Legislature‘s intent. He posits that construing Senate Bill 1437 to apply to murder, but not attempted murder, will result in “absurdly disparate” sentencing consequences for the same conduct, with persons convicted of the lesser offense of attempted murder serving longer sentences than those convicted of murder.20
Munoz is correct that the language of a statute should not be given a literal meaning if doing so would result in absurd consequences that the Legislature did not intend, or would frustrate the purpose of the legislation as a whole. (See, e.g., Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 290; People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 358, 362; Switzer v. Wood (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 116, 129; People v. Morales (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 800, 806 [the literal meaning of the words of a statute may be disregarded to avoid absurd results].) But these principles do not help Munoz
First, all indications are that the exclusion of attempted murder was intentional. The statute‘s uncodified statement of legislative findings and declarations provides: “(f) It is necessary 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 intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. [¶] (g) Except as stated in
That the Legislature intentionally excluded attempted murder is also shown by its use of the term “attempted” in
Nor is any absurdity apparent. Contrary to the central premise underlying Munoz‘s arguments, it is far from clear that interpreting Senate Bill 1437 to
It is possible that, due to variables such as the applicability of sentencing enhancements, an attempted murderer could be punished with a sentence lengthier than that conceivably imposed on a murderer who obtained section 1170.95 relief. But this fact does not trigger application of the absurdity exception. The “absurdity exception requires much more than [a] showing that troubling consequences may potentially result if the statute‘s plain meaning were followed or that a different approach would have been wiser or better. [Citations.] Rather, ‘[t]o justify departing from a literal reading of a clearly worded statute, the results produced must be so unreasonable the Legislature could not have intended them.’ [Citation.] Moreover, our courts have wisely cautioned that the absurdity exception to the plain meaning rule ‘should be used most sparingly by the judiciary and only in extreme cases else we violate the separation of powers principle of government. [Citation.] We do not sit as a “super-legislature.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Switzer v. Wood, supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 129; People v. Morales, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 806 [the absurdity doctrine should be used only in extreme cases]; People v. Schoop (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 457, 470.)
In support of his contention that denying Senate Bill 1437 relief to attempted murderers is absurd, Munoz relies primarily upon People v. King (1993) 5 Cal.4th 59 (King) and People v. Barrajas (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 926. In King, the court confronted a “sentencing anomaly” in which “a literal interpretation of interrelated statutes would have meant that some juveniles convicted of first degree murder would be eligible to be committed to the former California Youth Authority (CYA) rather than sentenced to state prison, but the same juveniles who merely attempted to commit first degree murder would be ineligible for such a commitment.” (People v. Cook (2015) 60 Cal.4th 922, 938, fn. 2 [summarizing King].) Under former
King does not compel judicial amendment of Senate Bill 1437 for two reasons. First, Senate Bill 1437‘s plain language is not the result of a disjointed series of amendments over time, as was the case in King, from which we might infer inadvertence or irrationality. Instead, the relevant provisions are contained in a single cohesive bill. (See People v. Lopez, supra, 2019 Cal.App. Lexis 773 at pp. *29-*30.) Second, in King the effect of the series of amendments and judicial interpretations was stark: first degree murderers under 18 were eligible for CYA, whereas persons of the same age who committed attempted murder were not. Here, in contrast, Senate Bill 1437 does not mandate that persons convicted of attempted murder are punished more severely than persons convicted of murder. Attempted murderers are statutorily subject to a lesser, not a greater, penalty than murderers. Senate Bill 1437 does not require that attempted murderers receive a harsher sentence, or prohibit them from receiving a more lenient sentence, than murderers. On its face, Senate Bill 1437 does not present the same clear-cut distinction as in King.
People v. Barrajas—in which the court found a drug diversion statute applied to a defendant who had attempted to possess methamphetamine, despite the fact the statutory scheme listed possession, but not attempted possession, as a divertible offense—is distinguishable for the same reason. (People v. Barrajas, supra, 62 Cal.App.4th at pp. 928-930.) Senate Bill 1437 does not preclude an attempted murderer from being sentenced to a lesser term than a murderer. To the extent a disparity might exist in an individual
c. Equal protection
Munoz next argues that construing Senate Bill 1437 to apply to murder, but not attempted murder, would likely violate the equal protection guarantees contained in the federal and California Constitutions. (
(i) Munoz is not similarly situated to persons convicted of murder
Munoz fails to establish the first requirement for an equal protection claim, i.e., that he is similarly situated to persons convicted of murder. ” ‘The concept of equal protection recognizes that persons who are similarly situated with respect to a law‘s legitimate purposes must be treated equally. [Citation.] Accordingly, ” ’ [t]he first prerequisite to a meritorious claim under the equal protection clause is a showing that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.’ ” [Citation.] “This initial inquiry is not whether persons are similarly situated for all purposes, but ‘whether they are similarly situated for purposes of the law challenged.’ ” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Valencia, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 376; People v. Wilkinson (2004) 33 Cal.4th 821, 836.) As relevant here, the equal protection guarantees of the federal and state constitutions are substantially equivalent and are analyzed in the same manner. (People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 287; People v. K.P. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 331, 341; People v. Wolfe (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 673, 686.)
People v. Lopez recently concluded that persons convicted of murder are not similarly situated to persons convicted of attempted murder for
(ii) A rational basis exists for limiting Senate Bill 1437 to persons convicted of murder
Munoz‘s equal protection claim also fails because he has not shown the absence of a rational basis for the Legislature‘s decision to exclude from Senate Bill 1437‘s reach persons convicted of attempted murder.
The constitutional guarantee of equal protection does not prohibit the state from drawing distinctions between different groups of individuals, but it requires that, at a minimum, such classifications bear a rational relationship to a legitimate public purpose. (In re J.M. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 999, 1010.) When the law involves a suspect classification, such as race or national origin, or affects a substantial right, it is subject to strict scrutiny; the state must show it has a compelling interest justifying the law and the distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to effectuate its purpose. (People v. Chatman, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 288; People v. Wilkinson, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 836; In re J.M., at p. 1010.)
But “[w]here . . . a disputed statutory disparity implicates no suspect class or fundamental right, ‘equal protection of the law is denied only where there is no “rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.” ’ [Citation.]” (Johnson v. Department of Justice (2015) 60 Cal.4th 871, 881 (Johnson), italics added; People v. Wolfe, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 689; People v. Bloomfield (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 647, 658; People v. Mora (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1483 [where rational basis review applies, the statutory classification withstands an equal protection challenge if there is any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification].) Rational basis review “sets a high bar before a law is deemed to lack even the minimal rationality necessary for it to survive constitutional scrutiny. Coupled with a rebuttable presumption that legislation is constitutional, this high bar helps ensure that democratically enacted laws are not invalidated merely based on a
Rational basis review applies here. A criminal defendant does not have a fundamental interest in a specific term of imprisonment or in the designation a particular crime receives. (People v. Wilkinson, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 838; People v. Wolfe, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 689; People v. Bloomfield, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 657; People v. Acosta (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 521, 527.) For that reason, courts have repeatedly held that the rational basis test applies to equal protection claims based on sentencing disparities. (Wilkinson, at p. 838; Bloomfield, at pp. 657-658; People v. Ward (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 252, 258; People v. Flores (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 74, 88.) “[W]here the issue is not whether a deprivation of an individual‘s liberty will occur, but rather the duration of that deprivation, rational basis review is appropriate” because the power to define crimes and fix penalties is vested exclusively in the legislative branch. (People v. K.P., supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 343
The mere fact that different punishments may result from application of
Senate Bill 1437‘s legislative history demonstrates that the Legislature had a rational basis for excluding attempted murder from
When considering Senate Bill 1437, the Senate and Assembly Appropriations Committees examined the potential fiscal impact of the proposed law. They recognized that Senate Bill 1437 would entail “potentially . . . major costs in the millions of dollars” to allow courts to process and adjudicate resentencing petitions, and potentially “major costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to the millions of dollars” to allow the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to supervise and transport inmates to resentencing hearings. (Sen. Com. on Appropriations, Analysis of Sen. Bill 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) May 14, 2018, p. 1; Assem. Com. on Appropriations, Analysis of Sen. Bill 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) Aug. 8, 2018, p. 1; see also Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) May 29, 2018,
Juxtaposed against this background, the Legislature could take into account the fact that the punishment for attempted murder is generally far less than the punishment imposed for murder. First degree murder is punishable by death, life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP), or 25 years to life in prison. Where the sentence is 25 years to life, the defendant is not eligible for parole until he or she has served 25 years. (People v. Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 163;
In contrast, attempted murder is punishable by a determinate term of five, seven, or nine years. (People v. Chiu, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 163;
A successful Senate Bill 1437 petitioner‘s criminal culpability does not simply evaporate; a meritorious
have taken into account that punishment for many of the target crimes that tend to underlie natural and probable consequences killings are comparable, or at least not extremely disparate, to the base term for attempted murder. For example, carjacking carries a sentence of three, five, or nine years. (
Consider the following hypothetical defendants. Defendant X participates in a carjacking in which a victim is killed. Defendant X is not the actual killer and does not act with implied malice or the intent to kill. He is convicted of first degree murder on a natural and probable consequences theory, and qualifies for
Thus, balancing the costs involved, the fact the penalties for attempted murder are less severe than for murder, and the length of prison terms mandated for many potentially relevant felonies, the Legislature could rationally have determined that extending Senate Bill 1437 relief to attempted murderers would put too great a strain on state resources, while resulting—in most cases—in insignificant decreases in the sentences served for attempted murder convictions. The Legislature could reasonably conclude its aims could be achieved by limiting relief to persons convicted of murder, but not attempted murder. “Preserving the government‘s financial integrity and resources is a legitimate state interest.” (People v. Chatman, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 290; In re C.B., supra, 6 Cal.5th at pp. 133-134; People v. Lopez, supra, 2019 Cal.App. Lexis 773 at pp. *39-*41; People v. Cruz (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 664, 679.)
People v. Chatman is instructive. There, the court considered an equal protection challenge to a statutory scheme in which not all felons were eligible to receive certificates of rehabilitation on an equal basis. (People v. Chatman, supra, 4 Cal.5th at p. 282section 1203.4 was statutorily ineligible for such a certificate if he or she was subsequently incarcerated. (Chatman, at p. 282Ibid.) Applying rational basis review, Chatman found no equal protection violation. The court explained: “while certificates provide substantial benefits to rehabilitated felons, adjudicating eligibility for them depends on the state‘s expenditure of significant judicial and executive branch resources. In providing this costly benefit only to former prisoners and former probationers who have not been subsequently incarcerated, the Legislature engaged in a line-drawing that—while perhaps not emblematic of the ideal rehabilitative system—embodies a sufficiently rational determination regarding distribution of resources.” ( Id. at p. 283.) Moreover, former prisoners, as opposed to former probationers, had a higher relative need for such certificates, in that they were ineligible to have their convictions dismissed under section 1203.4, and obtaining a certificate was their primary avenue for relief. (Chatman, at pp. 283, 291Id. at p. 291.)
Here, the Legislature could have made a similarly rational calculus. Like the certificate of rehabilitation process described in Chatman, significant resources are necessary to effectuate the Senate Bill 1437 resentencing process. Trial courts must consider petitions; defendants are entitled to counsel; and prosecutors must prepare and file responses.
We acknowledge that it is possible an attempted murderer, who did not act with malice, could hypothetically receive a longer sentence than if murder had resulted from commission of the target crime.24 But California‘s sentencing scheme is complex; any given sentence depends on a myriad of variables including applicable enhancements, the number of victims, application of
Munoz‘s citations to Newland v. Board of Governors (1977) 19 Cal.3d 705, and People v. Schoop, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th 457, do not assist him. Newland found an equal protection violation where the law allowed an individual convicted of a felony sex crime to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation, but a person who was convicted of a misdemeanor sex crime could not. (Newland, at pp. 707-708, 712-713.) Schoop found an equal protection violation where persons convicted of one statute were subject to a 10-year waiting period before applying for a certificate of rehabilitation, whereas persons convicted of similar offenses had to wait only seven years. (Schoop, at pp. 470-474.) In neither case was a rational basis shown for the statutory distinctions. Indeed, in Newland, the Attorney General did not even attempt to offer a justification. (Newland, at p. 713.) Here, in contrast, a rational basis exists.
To the extent Munoz intends to claim that excluding attempted murderers from
[[d. California Constitution‘s prohibition against unusual punishment
Munoz next argues that “denying the benefits” of Senate Bill 1437 to persons convicted of attempted murder on a natural and probable consequences theory “may engender ‘unusual punishment’ considerations.” In support, he cites People v. Schueren (1973) 10 Cal.3d 553 and People v. Wingo (1975) 14 Cal.3d 169, for the proposition that punishing a lesser included offense more severely than a greater offense is unusual punishment under the California Constitution. (See People v. Smith (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1460, 1468-1469; People v. Doyle (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1268.) This contention need not detain us long. As we have explained, Senate Bill 1437 does not require a greater punishment for attempted murder than for murder. Thus, it is not facially unconstitutional.
As to the contention that Munoz‘s specific sentence is unconstitutionally unusual, this claim is not yet ripe for review. As explained in the next section, we are vacating Munoz‘s sentence and remanding the matter for resentencing, to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion to determine whether to strike or dismiss the
4. The matter must be remanded for resentencing
When the trial court sentenced Munoz in July of 2017, imposition of a
Effective January 1, 2018, the Legislature amended
DISPOSITION
Munoz‘s sentence is vacated and the matter is remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion and determine whether to strike or dismiss the
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION
EDMON, P. J.
We concur:
LAVIN, J.
EGERTON, J.
Notes
CALCRIM No. 601 stated, in pertinent part: “If you find the defendant guilty of attempted murder under Count 1 and/or Count 2, you must then decide whether the People have proved the additional allegation that the attempted murder was done willfully, and with deliberation and premeditation. [¶] The defendant or Jonathan Loaiza acted willfully if he intended to kill when he acted. The defendant or Jonathan Loaiza deliberated if he carefully weighed the considerations for and against his choice and, knowing the consequences, decided to kill. The defendant or Jonathan Loaiza acted with premeditation if he decided to kill before completing the acts of attempted murder. [¶] The attempted murder was done willfully and with deliberation and premeditation if either one of the defendant [sic] or Jonathan Loaiza or all of them acted with that state of mind.” (Italics added.)