People v. Mendoza CA2/8

California Court of Appeal May 21, 2025 No. B333579Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that he forfeited his claims under the Racial Justice Act and the sentencing provisions of Penal Code section 1385 by failing to raise them in the trial court. The court further held that the defendant failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel regarding these omissions.

Issues

Whether the defendant forfeited claims under the Racial Justice Act by failing to raise them at trial.
Whether the defendant forfeited claims regarding the trial court's sentencing discretion under Penal Code section 1385 by failing to raise them at trial.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise claims under the Racial Justice Act or section 1385.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Mendoza forfeited these claims by failing to raise them at the trial court.”

“Mendoza forfeited this attack on his sentence by failing to raise this issue or any potentially applicable mitigating circumstance at the trial court.”

“We presume the trial court knew the law and followed it, in the absence of a record showing otherwise.”

Filed 5/21/25 P. v. Mendoza CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B333579

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA150959 v.

CARLOS MENDOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Roger Ito, Judge. Affirmed. Marilee Marshall, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Nicholas J. Webster and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Two juries convicted a gang trio of murdering a rival. This appeal, Carlos Mendoza’s, is the third appeal arising from the shooting. Mendoza raises two forfeited issues: one concerns the Racial Justice Act (Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 1) (the Act), and the other is a sentencing issue. We affirm. Code citations are to the Penal Code. We need not dwell long on the facts due to the nature of the disposition. We recently set out the facts in our opinion addressing the appeal of Mendoza’s codefendant, Robert Medrano. (See People v. Medrano (Feb. 13, 2025, B332155) [nonpub. opn.] (Medrano).) We incorporate those facts here. Mendoza and Medrano had a joint trial. This trial, and the earlier trial of their other codefendant, Daniel Frias, centered on recorded statements made by Frias to informants posing as inmates as part of a of a Perkins operation. (See Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292 (Perkins).) Frias admitted shooting someone he thought was a gang rival as payback for getting pistol-whipped and carjacked the day before. Frias said Medrano and Mendoza (known as Blanco and Downer) helped him plan and carry out the shooting. (See Medrano, supra; People v. Frias (Oct. 23, 2024, B329215) [nonpub. opn.].) Video and ballistics evidence and witness testimony supported Frias’s jailhouse statements. (See Medrano, supra.) At the conclusion of Mendoza’s and Medrano’s trial, the jury convicted both men of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), convicted Mendoza of possessing a firearm as a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and found true a personal use firearm allegation as to Mendoza (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Mendoza in September 2023, after finding he had a prior strike conviction. (See §§ 667, subds.

People v. Mendoza CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B333579

CARLOS MENDOZA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WILEY, J.

STRATTON, P. J.

VIRAMONTES, J.

AI Brief