People v. Espinoza CA6

Filed 11/22/24 P. v. Espinoza CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051119 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2114192)

v.

IGNACIO ESPINOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Ignacio Espinoza appeals from a final judgment in a criminal action following a court trial under Penal Code section 1192 to determine whether the murder defendant admitted committing was of the first or second degree. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. Defendant responded by filing a two-page handwritten supplemental brief. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (Id. at p. 110.) We also discuss defendant’s contentions and explain why we will affirm the judgment. (Ibid.)

I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS Defendant was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1; unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code), violating a protective order (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 2), two counts of making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); counts 3 and 4), and spousal battery (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); count 5). Count 1 included an allegation that defendant used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) The operative amended complaint also alleged defendant had suffered four prior convictions: for forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)), committing a lewd act on a child under 14 years old (§ 288, subd. (a)), and sexual penetration with a foreign object on a child under 14 years old (§ 289, subd. (j).) (§§ 667.5, subd. (c), 1170.12, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c).) Defendant pleaded no contest on all counts and admitted the charged allegations. A court trial commenced in 2022 for the sole purpose of determining whether defendant was guilty of first degree or second degree murder for the killing of his estranged wife, Rosemary Sanchez Espinoza. (§ 1192.) The husband of defendant’s cousin testified that on October 27, 2021, defendant arrived at his house unexpectedly and began washing his hands and clothes. Defendant asked for tequila, a change of clothes, and garbage bags to put his bloody socks in. He said he had gotten into a fight with his wife and her boyfriend. When asked “What if you killed her?”, defendant replied, “Too bad. I grabbed her by the neck and I told her – I told you I was going to kill you, bitch.” Defendant asked for a ride to the bus station so he could go somewhere, possibly Mexico. He said one of his children would pick up his car from the house. Defendant’s son testified that he had been living with his mother at the time she was murdered, and was not speaking to his father because he had been threatening her. He last saw his mother around 7:00 or 7:30 a.m. on the morning of the murder. Later, when he identified her body, he noticed injuries to her face and hands that were not 2