People v. Galarza CA4/3

Filed 9/11/25 P. v. Galarza CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064265

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08CF0137)

DAMIEN L. GALARZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.. * * *

A jury convicted defendant Damien L. Galarza of one count of 1 first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and one count of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury found true two special circumstance allegations: lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)) and murder committed to further the activities of a criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). The jury also found true that the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that defendant had vicariously discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction, plus a concurrent term of 25 years for the firearm enhancement. The court also imposed, but stayed, the following: 10 years for the gang enhancement and two years for the street terrorism conviction. In 2021, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6).2 The trial court summarily denied the petition. It held defendant was ineligible for relief because the jury’s special circumstance findings necessarily established defendant acted with the intent to kill. The court also emphasized the jury never received any instructions on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Defendant appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.