People v. Estrella CA4/2

Filed 5/24/21 P. v. Estrella CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E074007
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1602363)
NACKING ESTRELLA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed.
Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Nacking Estrella was charged by information with
premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 1) and assault
with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2). As to both counts, the information
alleged that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim.
(§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) A jury found defendant guilty as charged
and found the enhancements true. A trial court sentenced him on count 1 to seven years
to life in state prison, plus a consecutive three years on the great bodily injury
enhancement. As to count 2, the court imposed three years, plus three years on the great
bodily injury enhancement, but stayed both terms under section 654.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant and Leslie H. (the victim) were cousins. They got into an argument
about defendant’s romantic relationship with their cousin, N.F. Defendant had told the
victim he was worried that N.F. was backing out of the relationship and asked her to
convince N.F. that their relationship was acceptable in their family. Defendant later told
the victim he felt like she backstabbed him since she told N.F. to get over him and move
on. Defendant felt betrayed and told the victim she really hurt his feelings. The victim
became angry and sent an offensive text to him. A few days later, defendant showed up
at the victim’s apartment. She answered the door with her bra on but no shirt, so he told
her to put a shirt on. Meanwhile, he went to the kitchen and appeared to start looking for
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
2
something. She returned to the kitchen, and they talked about their argument. They
apologized to each other, and the victim walked to the bathroom. In the mirror, she could
see defendant again looking for something in the kitchen. The victim picked up her
phone to call someone, and defendant approached her, took the phone from her hand, and
told her to give him a hug. He held her for an unusually long time, and she felt
uncomfortable and started to walk away. She then felt his arm wrap around her neck
very tightly, and she passed out. When the victim woke up, she had blood gushing out of
her neck and felt a knife in her throat, and she pulled it out.
Police investigators brought defendant to the police station to interview him about
the incident.2 At the beginning of the interview, the investigator advised defendant of his
Miranda3 rights, and defendant acknowledged that he understood. He then denied having
anything to do with the victim’s injury.
The next day, defendant voluntarily took a polygraph test. He initially denied
cutting the victim’s throat with a knife. However, he eventually admitted to the
polygraph examiner that he choked her, stabbed her, and tried to kill her. The examiner
then called the investigator into the room for defendant to tell him what happened.
Defendant said he was a bad person because he just tried to kill his cousin. The
investigator reminded him of his Miranda rights, and defendant repeated that he choked
the victim and stabbed her with a knife.
2 A videotape of the interview was played for the jury at trial.
3 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3
Defendant filed a motion to suppress his statements made to the investigator, and
the court denied it.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and the following potential arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in
denying the motion to suppress defendant’s statements to police on the ground that they
were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights; and (2) whether the trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request a pinpoint instruction stating that heat
of passion can be considered to negate premeditation. Counsel has also requested this
court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
SLOUGH
J.
5