People v. Murrillo CA4/2

Filed 3/9/23 P. v. Murrillo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E079731
v. (Super.Ct.No. 16CR033451)
RANDY MAURICIO MURRILLO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Alexander R.
Martinez, Judge. Affirmed.
Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Randy Mauricio Murrillo appeals from a final judgment
following a plea of guilty, based on the sentence imposed or other matters occurring after
the plea. For the reasons set forth post, we affirm the judgment.
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Defendant and appellant Randy Mauricio Murrillo appeals from a final judgment
following a plea of guilty, based on the sentence imposed or other matters occurring after
the plea (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3); Pen. Code,1 § 1237, subd. (b)). We
affirm.
On November 13, 2017, an information charged defendant with one count of
murder (§ 187, subd. (a) (count 1)) and alleged enhancements for the personal use of a
firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), personally and intentionally discharging a firearm
(§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and personally and intentionally discharging a firearm and
proximately causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).
On July 27, 2022, the information was amended to add one count of voluntary
manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a) (count 2)), to allege an enhancement for personal use of a
firearm (§ 12022.5), and to allege that the crime involved great violence, a circumstance
in aggravation that justifies the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the
middle term (§ 1170, subd. (b)(2)).
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pled guilty2 to count 2, admitted
the firearm enhancement, and stipulated that an aggravated term is justified because the
crime involved great violence. In addition, defendant signed a plea addendum admitting
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
The trial court’s minutes state that the defendant pled no contest to count 2, but
2
both the reporter’s transcript of the plea hearing and the signed plea declaration indicate
that the defendant pled guilty.
2
that the provisions of former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) “would not apply because
the Defendant was the actual shooter and acted with the intent to kill.” After accepting
the defendant’s plea, the trial court dismissed count 1.
On September 2, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant pursuant to the plea
agreement to an aggregate state prison term of 21 years, consisting of the upper term of
11 years for voluntary manslaughter and a consecutive 10 years for the personal use of a
firearm.
In addition, the court imposed a court construction fee of $30 (Gov. Code,
§ 70373), a court operations fee of $40 (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a restitution fine of $300
(Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a parole revocation restitution fine of $300, stayed
(Pen. Code, § 1202.45). The trial court also ordered defendant to pay victim restitution to
the California Victims Compensation Board in the amount of $7,499.98 (Pen. Code,
§ 1202.4, subd. (f)).
The court awarded defendant a total of 2,579 days of presentence custody credit,
consisting of 2,243 days of actual time and an additional 336 days of conduct credit
(§ 2933.1).
On September 6 and September 15, 2022, defendant timely filed notices of appeal.
The trial court denied both of defendant’s requests for certificates of probable cause.
3
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
According to the police report3, on the night of July 11, 2016, officers responding
to a robbery alarm at the “Office Bar”4 in San Bernardino found the victim, James W.,
lying on the sidewalk with gunshot wounds to his upper torso. He was pronounced dead
at the scene. Officers learned there had been a fight in the bar that escalated into the
shooting, which occurred just outside the doorway of the bar. Three spent cartridge
casings were recovered from the parking lot.
Witnesses told police that the victim had been involved in a fight with three
Hispanic males, one of whom hit the victim with a glass object which broke and cut the
victim causing him to bleed from the forehead.
A uniformed security guard attempted to break up the fight and deployed a Taser
on the victim, but it had no effect. The fight moved toward the door. As the men were
exiting the bar, three gunshots were heard. The victim ran through the parking lot and
south on E street, where he fell and died from his injuries. Two of the men he had been
fighting with were seen leaving in an older Cadillac, and the shooter was seen driving
away in a white SUV.
Most of the fight and the shooting was captured on the bar’s video security
system. Officers reviewing the recordings identified several of the participants, including
the defendant. Just prior to the shooting, the defendant can be seen on the video
3 At the plea hearing, the parties stipulated that the facts contained in the police
report provide a factual basis for the defendant’s plea.
4 Also referred to as the “Office Saloon.” Hereafter, “Office Bar.”
4
displaying the handgun to another member of the group. A former bartender who had
been drinking with the group earlier in the evening was seen on the video talking and
dancing with the defendant. She told police that she didn’t know him or his name but
was able to confirm the defendant’s identity by his photograph.
On July 13, 2016, a warrant was obtained, and defendant was arrested while
leaving his residence in a white SUV. The defendant told police that he was at the Office
Bar that night with several friends, and they were drinking heavily. The defendant said
that one of his friends got into a fight, and he assisted his friend until a security guard
deployed a Taser. The defendant said he followed as the fight moved outside to the
parking lot, but he could not remember what happened after that. He said he was too
drunk and “ ‘blacked out.’ ”
DISCUSSION
After 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 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) setting
forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and
has requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders,
counsel identified the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for
error: “Whether [defendant]’s sentence is authorized under Penal Code section[s] 1170,
subdivision (b) and 1385, subdivision (c)?”
5
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he
has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant’s
attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue
exists. (Id. at p. 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
FIELDS
J.
6