People v. Carpio CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 2024 No. B328636Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by failing to consider the defendant's relative youth when determining if he acted with reckless indifference to human life, but the error was harmless because the evidence of the defendant's intentional conduct rendered a different outcome improbable.

Issues

Whether a trial court is required to consider a defendant's relative youth when determining if they acted with reckless indifference to human life in a section 1172.6 proceeding.
Whether the trial court's failure to consider the defendant's relative youth was harmless error.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“trial courts are obligated to consider a defendant’s relative youth (that is, whether the defendant is 26 years old or younger) as one of many circumstances in assessing whether a defendant has acted with reckless indifference”

“any such error was harmless in light of the evidence and circumstances of the murder.”

“it is not reasonably probable that consideration of defendant’s relative youth would have altered the court’s finding that defendant acted in a manner that was not recklessly impulsive”

Filed 7/24/24 P. v. Carpio CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B328636

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA073936) v.

MICHAEL STEVEN CARPIO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martin L. Herscovitz, Judge. Affirmed.

Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising

Deputy Attorney General, and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

****** Michael Steven Carpio (defendant), who with his brother and codefendant Anthony Carpio was convicted of second degree murder, appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Following an evidentiary hearing, the court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant directly aided and abetted an implied malice murder. Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support that finding. Instead, he argues the trial court was required to consider the fact that he was only 19 years old at the time of the offense. Given the evolving developments of law in this area, we agree the court erred in not considering this factor. However, any such error was harmless in light of the evidence and circumstances of the murder. We accordingly affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts A. The underlying crime One afternoon in April 2013 after school let out, defendant—then age 19—and his younger brother Anthony walked onto the campus of Cleveland High School in Reseda, California. The brothers “went up” to Kevin Orellana (Orellana), who was standing on one of the handball courts. Defendant made

People v. Carpio CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B328636

MICHAEL STEVEN CARPIO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief