People v. Medina CA2/8

Filed 9/18/24 P. v. Medina CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B332906

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA100266 v.

MARCOS MEDINA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura C. Ellison, Judge. Affirmed. Christine Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm. Code citations are to the Penal Code.

I In February 2019, David Amaro stood outside near a family friend’s house in Gardena, California. His mother was inside, delivering a party invitation. A car pulled up. A man got out of the back seat and approached Amaro. Amaro turned and ran. The approaching man shot Amaro in the back. Amaro died at the hospital. II Police determined one car in the episode belonged to Marcos Medina and another person. Police questioned Medina. One officer read Medina his Miranda rights. (See Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.) Medina responded to each query that yes, he understood. The officers then tried two methods to get information from Medina. Officers put Medina in a cell with a microphone. Medina and the other person in the cell talked off and on about the shooting. During these conversations, Medina described some the arrangements for the shooting, mentioned someone disposed of the gun, said the shooting was his idea, and admitted he didn’t know how many bullets hit Amaro. The officers also gave Medina partial or false information to prompt a confession. They told him his accomplice had admitted driving the car Medina arrived in and had identified Medina as the shooter. They showed him an initialed six-pack with his picture circled on it and told him a witness to the shooting had identified him. Neither of these claims was true. But Medina then admitted being at the scene of the shooting. When an officer asked Medina whether perhaps he had started shooting because of adrenaline, Medina said yes, that was what had happened.