California Court of Appeal Aug 8, 2025 No. E084807Unpublished
Filed 8/8/25 P. v. Arredondo CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E084807
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF2301164)
MARY LORENE ARREDONDO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Louis R. Hanoian, Judge.
(Retired Judge of the San Diego Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
A jury found defendant and appellant Mary Lorene Arredondo guilty of first
degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187) and true the allegation that defendant had personally
and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury and death
(§12022.53, subd. (d)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true beyond a
Defendant appeals from the judgment. Appointed counsel has filed a brief under
the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), requesting this court to conduct an independent review of
the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. In addition,
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
defendant has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court and has not
done so. After independently reviewing the record, we find no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. People’s Evidence
In October 2023, defendant lived with Adam Loza and Dwight Eastman in a trailer
park (Space 19) in Hemet, California. At that time, defendant was Eastman’s caretaker,
and Loza’s girlfriend. Defendant had also previously dated another resident of the trailer
park, Joseph Schlone and they may have continued dating while defendant was involved
with Loza. Defendant’s daughter and another resident of the trailer park believed that
defendant, Loza and Schlone, were involved in a love triangle.
Shortly after 8:00 p.m. on October 29, 2023, the manager of the trailer park and
other residents heard two gunshots, followed by a third after a pause. The sound of
gunshots in the area was common. Before the gunshots, residents had overheard an
argument between defendant and Loza near the laundry room. One resident thought to
herself, “Oh, [defendant] is yelling again.” Defendant sounded angry at Loza, and said,
“you’re not going to fuck with me” or “You want to fuck me?” before she chased him
through the breezeway into the hallway. According to one resident, defendant also stated
after the first two shots, “well, he’s not going to be messing with me here.”
3
Surveillance footage captured some of the incident. In surveillance footage with a
time stamp of 8:06 p.m., defendant can be seen with Loza in the trailer park. After Loza
pulled out a cellphone, he stopped in front of the breezeway. While he was on his phone,
defendant walked eastbound toward the street, and 16 seconds later, defendant turned
around and faced Loza. Loza began walking towards her. While they stood next to each
other, a muzzle flash from a gun causing a small explosion to propel the round from the
weapon—can be seen coming from defendant towards Loza. Loza backed away with his
hands up, and a cell phone still in his hands. Loza then ran towards the breezeway, with
defendant chasing him. When Loza reached the breezeway, defendant’s hands were up,
and she was pointing out as if to shoot. After initially backing away, defendant
reengaged with the gun in her hands and returned to the breezeway.
Joseph Schlone then emerged from the breezeway and walked in the direction of
defendant’s home. At this point, defendant still appeared to be holding the gun. Schlone
approached defendant and tried to grab the gun, but defendant moved away and
continued to walk eastbound. Defendant exited the breezeway and retrieved a bag
outside. She then left her residence and headed eastbound on a bicycle with the bag.
At around 8:08 p.m., officers responded to the trailer park. One resident informed
the officers that she had heard defendant arguing with Loza, and that defendant had been
outside when the gunshots were heard. She had also observed defendant riding her
bicycle outside the complex. When officers went to defendant’s home, Eastman reported
that defendant had left 30 minutes earlier. When the officers walked past the laundry
4
room at that time, they did not see any indicia of a shooting. A responding officer was
“100 percent [certain]” that the laundry room door was not open, and he confirmed this
observation by later checking his body camera footage. In addition, when the officers
walked around the area with a flashlight, they found no casings or blood trail. Because
officers found nothing associated with a shooting, they left.
At approximately 11:22 p.m., the trailer park manager walked over to the laundry
room to investigate a report of someone sleeping inside. When he arrived, the door was
open halfway, and Loza was lying on the ground inside, with blood on his head. He did
not appear to be breathing. The manager called 911.
When authorities responded to that call, they found Loza in the laundry room. The
external metal door was open, and Loza’s foot extended through the door. Officers
recovered a baggie of methamphetamine from Loza’s clothing. Loza had gloves on both
hands. No blood was found in the breezeway or outside the laundry room door, and there
was no indication that that the body had been killed in a different location and moved to
the laundry room. After finding the body, officers knocked on defendant’s door for five
to 10 minutes. They heard a woman’s voice yell “go away.” Eventually defendant came
outside. She looked confused and asked what was going on.
Defendant maintained that she had nothing to do with Loza’s death. She
explained that she had left her home four hours earlier, around 7:30 p.m. or 8 p.m. After
visiting one of her daughters in Banning, she returned to the trailer park about 30 minutes
before officers arrived. She explained that Alicia Sanchez, her other daughter, had given
5
her a ride to and from Banning. However, according to Sanchez, she had not seen her
mother at all that day and did not drive her anywhere. Defendant’s hands were tested for
gunshot residue; none was detected.
Officers found a pair of sandals and other clothing in Space 19. On surveillance
footage it appeared as if defendant was wearing the same sandals and clothing. Although
residue can be found on clothing, those items were not tested for such residue. A casing
was recovered in the hallway north of the restroom. Another casing was found in front of
Space 27 underneath the tire of a car. The casings were the same caliber as used to kill
Loza. Loza’s cause of death was determined to be multiple gunshot wounds. He had one
wound in his chest, and the other in his left shoulder. Loza also had bruises, abrasions
and contusions throughout the rest of his body. After he was shot, Loza could have been
mobile for a period of time. Nevertheless, he would have died within minutes of
sustaining those wounds. At the time of his death, Loza, who was 40 years old,
219 pounds, and 5 feet 9 inches tall, had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system;
those drugs did not cause his death. But the ingestion of methamphetamine in general
can cause erratic behavior, aggression, and paranoia.
Two years before he was killed, Loza was a victim of another shooting that took
place within a quarter of a mile from the trailer park. One year before Loza was killed,
he testified against the shooter in that case. In August 2023, that person received a life
sentence.
6
According to resident Dawn Barnett, defendant and Loza had argued earlier on
October 23 and defendant’s voice was raised. And in the late afternoon or early evening
that day, Barnett had an altercation with defendant. Defendant had stood outside
Barnett’s home and shook her fence. Defendant had seemed upset and the two
exchanged insults before Barnett went inside her home. Barnett acknowledged that she
had never previously seen defendant with a gun. Barnett also acknowledged that she and
defendant had “bad blood” over men. Defendant had previously accused Barnett of
sleeping with Schlone. And eight months to a year earlier, defendant had slapped her.
Six months before the shooting, Zepeda had overheard a confrontation between
Loza and Schlone, where defendant had intervened to break them up. Defendant told
Loza not to mess with Schlone because he carried a gun. Zepeda was used to hearing
defendant yell and observed that she had argued with Loza previously. Zepeda
acknowledged that she had never seen defendant carry a firearm or act violently in the
previous seven years that she had known her.
B. Defense Evidence
According to Officer Dominic Delbono, “[i]f the bullet is still in the body [of a
shooting victim], there’s typically blood that falls to the ground no matter what.”
Although there would be substantially more blood with the presence of an exit wound, he
would still expect some blood loss even without one because when a bullet strikes a
person, it still breaks the skin entering their body. He acknowledged that if the victim
was wearing a T-shirt and a hoodie, that might affect the likelihood of blood being found
7
on the ground. He also acknowledged that he had one case with a .22 caliber bullet to the
chest where there was no blood on the ground and that the smaller the wound the less
likely it would be to find any blood on the ground.
To Officer Delbono’s knowledge, he was not aware of any information that
suggested the 2021 shooting of Loza was related to the current incident. Loza was shot
by Tyrone Geeon September 3, 2021, about 400 feet away from the trailer park. On
August 11, 2023, Gee was sentenced to state prison for 4 years plus an indeterminate
term of 50 years to life. The officer was aware of the phrase, “‘snitches get stiches,’” i.e.,
if you testify against someone else, you may be hurt later. Although Loza testified in the
trial, there was no information on the content of his testimony or whether he testified for
the prosecution.
Defendant’s friends attested to her character as a nonviolent person. Brian Kohrell
is a Navy veteran who lost his handyman business during the Covid pandemic and lived
on the streets for over a year. Defendant had opened her home to him and gave him a
place to stay and rebuild his life. He had two guns, and offered to take her to a pistol
range, but she was never interested. Kohrell has never seen defendant punch anyone,
threaten anyone, or hold a weapon in a menacing manner. However, he was not aware
that defendant was a felon who was not permitted to be near firearms. And he
acknowledged that he had not seen the surveillance footage in this case.
Defendant’s child’s father, David Alcaraz, testified that he had dated defendant in
2015 and had a son together in 2018. They argued verbally, but their arguments were
8
never physical or involved weapons. He had never seen defendant physically attack
anyone or threaten anyone. He, however, was unaware of defendant’s misdemeanor
conviction in the 1990s for domestic battery, or her conviction for felony theft. Alcaraz
acknowledged that he had a felony theft conviction from 2014 and that one requirement
of such conviction was to not possess any guns. In his opinion, defendant was not the
type of person who would kill someone, and he was surprised to learn that she was
charged with murder.
III.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon her request, this court appointed counsel to
represent her. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a
statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues and requesting
this court to conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel has identified the
potential issues of whether there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and
deliberation to support the first degree murder conviction, whether the trial court
prejudicially erred by allowing the officer to narrate the entire surveillance video and
offer testimony that defendant was “‘pointing out as to shooting or going to shoot
towards [Loza],’” and whether the trial court was required to instruct on heat of passion
voluntary manslaughter based on evidence defendant was angry and an argument
preceded the shooting.
9
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but she
has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the
record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in
reversal or modification of the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442;
People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see
People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS CODRINGTON Acting P. J. We concur:
FIELDS J.
RAPHAEL J.
10
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for first degree murder and the firearm enhancement after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and Anders v. California, finding no arguable error.
Issues
Whether there was sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support the first degree murder conviction.
Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by allowing an officer to narrate surveillance video and offer testimony regarding the defendant's actions.
Whether the trial court was required to instruct on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“After independently reviewing the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.”
“Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.”