People v. Gurley CA1/5

Filed 3/3/25 P. v. Gurley CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172260

v. (Riverside County DAVID NORMAN GURLEY, Super. Ct. No. RIF2102502) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant and appellant David Norman Gurley (appellant) appeals from the judgment following his conviction of first degree murder. He contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct a Marsden1 hearing based on comments he made at the sentencing hearing and in denying his Romero2 motion to strike prior convictions. We conditionally reverse with instructions that the trial court conduct a Marsden hearing. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2023, a jury convicted appellant of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))3 and found true allegations that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily

1 (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).)

2 (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).)

3 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

injury or death to another person (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). Appellant subsequently admitted four prior convictions from 1986 and 1987 that qualified as “strike” offenses under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12). In October 2023, after denying appellant’s Romero motion to strike the prior convictions, the trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of 100 years to life in prison. The sentence was comprised of 75 years to life for the murder count (25 years to life, tripled due to the strike priors) plus an additional 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. This appeal followed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND According to surveillance footage, at 12:25 a.m. in the early morning of June 2, 2021, the victim, Sydney Thompson, parked across the street from a tow yard where appellant worked and lived. At 12:30 a.m., appellant was dropped off at the tow yard and he subsequently approached the victim’s car and engaged with the victim for about two minutes. Appellant then returned to the tow yard and entered the tow yard shop. At 12:47 a.m., footage showed appellant armed with a gun. At 12:57 a.m., appellant again approached the victim’s car and interacted with the victim for about a minute before returning to the tow yard. After approaching the second time, appellant texted his boss saying, “I’m not calling you to see what you doing. This motherfucking African here.” At 1:31 a.m., surveillance video showed appellant approach appellant’s car a third and final time. Although not captured on video, twelve rounds were fired into the victim’s vehicle. The victim exited the passenger side door but died on the ground from the gunshot wounds.