People v. Gaxiola CA2/4
Filed 7/31/25 P. v. Gaxiola CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B336592
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA454612 ) v.
EDUARDO ORTIZ GAXIOLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gustavo N. Sztraicher, Judge. Affirmed. Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION A jury found appellant Eduardo Gaxiola guilty of one count of first degree murder and found true the allegation that Gaxiola personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death. The trial court sentenced him to a term of 50 years to life in prison. Gaxiola appealed. Gaxiola’s appointed counsel filed a brief requesting that this court independently review the record for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende).) Gaxiola did not file a supplemental brief. We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record and have found no arguable issues. We therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An information filed in April 2023 charged Gaxiola with one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)1). The information also alleged Gaxiola personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, which caused great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). At trial, the prosecution presented the following evidence. Gaxiola worked periodically fixing machinery for the victim’s produce processing business. Gaxiola was also friends with the victim. However, about a month prior to the murder, the victim told his business partner that they would no longer be using Gaxiola for repairs. On the day of the incident, February 9, 2017, Gaxiola parked his burgundy van near the parking lot entrance of the victim’s business. About ten minutes later, the victim backed his car out of the parking lot and stopped adjacent to Gaxiola’s
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)