People v. Torres

Filed 7/29/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100501

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE-2022-0005820) v.

SERGIO MUNGUIA TORRES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, Seth R. Hoyt, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Brad K. Kaiserman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

A jury found defendant Sergio Munguia Torres guilty of first degree murder in the killing of his wife, Sonia Suarez, and found true that defendant personally and intentionally used a firearm. The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life for murder, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, for an aggregate sentence of 50 years to life. Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss the firearm enhancement under Penal Code 1 section 1385. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The evidence established that defendant waited in his vehicle until Suarez drove by and then followed her and ran her off the road. He shot her when she tried to drive off and he then fled the scene. An information charged defendant with murder and alleged that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death. A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and found true the firearm allegation. The prosecution filed a sentencing brief asking the trial court to deny probation, exercise its discretion not to dismiss the firearm enhancement under section 1385, and impose consecutive 25-year terms for first degree murder and the firearm enhancement. Defendant did not file a sentencing brief. At the sentencing hearing on February 5, 2024, the prosecutor reiterated the prosecution’s request to impose the maximum sentence. Defense counsel stated, “We don’t have any additional information.” Addressing the firearm enhancement, the trial court commented that, assuming defendant was requesting dismissal under section 1385, the court understood its discretion to the strike the enhancement but observed that the victim was “particularly vulnerable” and “the manner in which the crime was carried out indicated planning,