People v. Pec CA4/3

Filed 4/29/25 P. v. Pec CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063158

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18CF0058)

ROSENDO XO PEC, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick H. Donahue, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Warren J. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Rosendo Xo Pec of first degree murder of an elderly transient woman, Willis, and found true the special allegation that he committed the murder while attempting to rape her. During the trial, the jury heard the recorded police interviews of Pec and Pec’s recorded jail calls. Pec made many incriminating statements in these recordings, including admitting to attempting to rape Willis and admitting to killing someone. He admitted to hitting and strangling Willis. All of Pec’s extrajudicial statements the jury heard were recorded. Dr. Yong-Son Kim, the forensic pathologist who performed Willis’s autopsy, testified her cause of death was sequelae of head and neck trauma. The pathologist also noted other significant natural findings that, had they not been there, Willis may have lived. The trial court included in its jury instructions, the bracketed portion of CALCRIM No. 358, which states, “Consider with caution any statement made by the defendant tending to show his guilt unless the statement was written or otherwise recorded.” Pec’s trial counsel did not object to this instruction. Pec appeals the judgment, alleging this was prejudicial instructional error because it effectively instructed the jury that it should believe Pec’s recorded confession about killing somebody, when other evidence shows Willis died from natural causes. Pec contends that if we find his trial counsel waived the issue, then he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We need not address the issues of forfeiture, instructional error, or Pec’s trial counsel’s performance, because we conclude any error was harmless. We affirm.