People v. Martinez CA6

Filed 6/5/25 P. v. Martinez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H051286 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 179119)

v.

BRANDON GENE MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Brandon Gene Martinez of first degree murder in 1997. He petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing after it determined defendant was ineligible for relief under the statute as a matter of law. Finding no prejudicial error, we will affirm the order denying the resentencing petition. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Defendant and a codefendant, Hayward Simon, Jr., were each charged with murder and tried together for a homicide that occurred in 1993. We have taken judicial notice of the record from the direct appeal. (People v. Simon et al. (case No. H017616).) The jury instructions quoted here are from the reporter’s transcript in that record. Relevant to defendant’s arguments in this appeal, the jury was instructed on aiding and abetting liability with CALJIC No. 3.01: “ ‘A person aids and abets the commission of a crime when he: [⁋] ‘One, with knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator; and, [⁋] ‘Two, with the specific intent or purpose of committing or encouraging or

facilitating the commission of the crime; and [⁋] ‘Three, by act or advice aids, promotes, encourages or instigates the commission of the crime.’ ” The jury was instructed on murder with CALJIC No. 8.10 as follows: “ ‘In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved: [⁋] ‘One, a human being was killed; [⁋] ‘Two, the killing was unlawful; and [⁋] ‘Three, the killing was done with malice aforethought.’ ” Malice was defined using CALJIC No. 8.11: “ ‘Malice may be either express or implied. [⁋] ‘Malice is express when there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill a human being. [⁋] ‘Malice is implied when: [⁋] ‘One, the killing resulted from an intentional act; [⁋] ‘Two, the natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life; and, [⁋] ‘Three, the act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.” The jury was instructed on a single theory of first degree murder: premeditation. As relevant here, the jury was instructed with CALJIC No. 8.20: “All murder which is perpetrated by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing with express malice aforethought is murder of the first degree.” “If you find that the killing was preceded and accompanied by a clear, deliberate intent on the part of the defendant to kill, which was the result of deliberation and premeditation, so that it must have been formed upon pre-existing reflection and not under a sudden heat of passion or other condition precluding the idea of deliberation, it is murder of the first degree.” “To constitute a deliberate and premeditated killing, the slayer must weigh and consider the question of killing and the reasons for and against such a choice and, having in mind the consequences, he decides to and does kill.” The jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine or felony murder. The jury found both defendant and his codefendant guilty of first degree murder. The judgments were affirmed in a single unpublished opinion in 1999. (People v. Simon et al. (Nov. 18, 1999, H017616) [nonpub. opn.].)