California Court of Appeal Oct 15, 2025 No. E084226Unpublished
Filed 10/15/25 P. v. Mendez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E084226
v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF2201221)
ROMAN RALPH MENDEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. F. Paul Dickerson III,
Judge. Affirmed.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Elana
Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
A jury convicted Roman Ralph Mendez of the first degree murder of Jason Roy
and the attempted premeditated murder of Kira C. Mendez argues that the record does
not contain substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation with respect to either
The events underlying Mendez’s convictions took place in October 2022. Roy
and Kira were in a romantic relationship and had been living together for one and one-
half years. Mendez is the former boyfriend of Roy’s sister. Mendez and Roy’s sister had
not been a couple for several months, but he and Roy continued to see each other.
Mendez and Roy would “hang out,” play video games online, or drink together. But Kira
did not trust Mendez and did not like being around him. Mendez and Roy were involved
in some sort of “drug activity” together.
Mendez arrived at Roy and Kira’s apartment after midnight one night. Kira was in
the bedroom and could see Roy and Mendez in the living room; the bedroom had no
door. The two men were having a casual conversation and preparing some marijuana to
smoke. Roy brought a marijuana cigar to Kira in the bedroom, and she smoked some and
took it back to Roy in the living room. Roy and Mendez “were having a business
conversation.” Kira tried to stay out of Roy’s “business,” and Roy tried to keep her away
from it, so she did not overhear any details. At some point, Mendez came into the
bedroom and asked Kira “what happened to the stuff that he gave” Roy. She understood
2
that Mendez was referring to cocaine. (Although Roy tried to keep her away from his
business, she had seen cocaine around.) She told Mendez that she had “‘no clue about
what [they had] going on.’” He continued to press her and insisted that she knew
something. Roy stepped between Mendez and Kira and said that Kira had “nothing to do
with this” and that it was not her place to answer Mendez’s questions. Mendez continued
to insist that Kira knew something, and she again told him that she did not know
anything.
Mendez then returned to the living room, pulled a gun out of his pocket, and
pointed it at Roy and Kira. Roy appeared to be shocked and said something like, “‘Are
you serious?’ . . . ‘Do you really have to take it there?’” He was not confrontational or
aggressive with Mendez. Roy and Kira took a few steps into the living room, and
Mendez asked for their cell phones. Roy did not own a cell phone, but Kira handed her
phone to Mendez. Mendez ordered Roy to the ground, and Roy lay face down. Mendez
pointed the gun at Kira as he searched Roy’s pockets. According to Kira’s trial
testimony, the next thing that she remembered was waking up on the floor in the living
room. She could feel that she was bleeding from the back of her head and knew that she
had been shot. She crawled out of the apartment and yelled for help. A neighbor called
911, and Kira identified Mendez as the shooter during the recorded call. The neighbor
also saw Roy, who was unresponsive, inside the apartment.
3
The responding police officers found Roy lying on his back with a gunshot wound
to his head. They did not find any weapons on him or around him, but they found a nine-
millimeter shell casing on the floor near him. They found another nine-millimeter shell
casing on the floor next to the living room wall. Kira said that Roy had one gun.
Officers found the gun in a drawer in the bedroom closet. The gun used .40-caliber
ammunition.
According to the forensic pathologist, Roy had an entrance wound in front of his
left ear and an exit wound on the right side of his head. The entrance wound was a
contact shot, so the gun’s muzzle was touching Roy’s skin or was near his skin when it
was fired. The gunshot wound caused his death. Roy had some scars and a few scabs on
his body but no other wounds.
Kira was treated for a depressed skull fracture and brain hemorrhaging as a result
of the gunshot wound to the back of her head. She had bullet fragments embedded in the
soft tissue of her scalp.
The People charged Mendez with the murder of Roy, the attempted premeditated
murder of Kira, and unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664,
29800, subd. (a)(1); unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.) With respect
to the murder and attempted murder counts, the operative information alleged that
Mendez personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury or
death to another person. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).)
4
In April 2024, a jury found Mendez guilty of first degree murder, attempted
premeditated murder, and the firearm possession offense.1 The jury also found the
firearm enhancements true. The trial court sentenced Mendez to a determinate term of 16
months in prison and an indeterminate term of 82 years to life in prison.
DISCUSSION
Mendez contends that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support a
finding of premeditation and deliberation with respect to his murder and attempted
murder convictions. We disagree.
“‘An intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it occurred as the result of
preexisting thought and reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse.’ [Citation.]
The reflection may be arrived at quickly; it need not span a specific or extended period of
time.” (People v. Lopez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 339, 354-355.) “‘“The true test is not the
duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each
other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly.”’”
(People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 332.)
Evidence of planning, preexisting motive, and the manner of killing bears on
whether a murder or attempted murder was premeditated and deliberate. (People v.
Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27 (Anderson); People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th
643, 663-664.) But those three factors—referred to as the Anderson factors—“are
1 The court instructed the jury on only one theory of first degree murder—willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.
5
descriptive and neither normative nor exhaustive,” so “reviewing courts need not accord
them any particular weight.” (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 420.) The
Anderson factors are merely “a framework to aid in appellate review,” and they do not
“define the elements of first degree murder or alter the substantive law of murder in any
way.” (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125.)
We review the jury’s finding of premeditation and deliberation for substantial
evidence. (People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1068-1069.) We review “the
entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it
contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational
trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Kipp
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1128.) We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the
judgment, and we defer to the jury’s credibility determinations and resolution of conflicts
in the evidence. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)
Mendez argues that there is insufficient evidence of each Anderson factor, but we
disagree. With respect to motive, the record shows that Mendez and Roy were involved
in “drug activity” together, and the two had a disagreement over missing cocaine.
Mendez believed that Kira knew where the cocaine was, and Roy and Kira insisted that
she knew nothing about it. Mendez eventually grew frustrated with their denials and
drew his gun. The jury could reasonably infer that Mendez shot the victims because he
believed that they had taken the drugs. (See People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at
6
pp. 309-310, 332 [motive evidence showed that the defendant killed his partner in the
marijuana trade right after the partner revealed the marijuana crop to strangers].) The
jury also could reasonably infer that Mendez shot Roy because he was responsible for the
missing cocaine, and Mendez tried to kill Kira because she witnessed Roy’s killing.
Either reasonable inference would lead to the conclusion that Mendez had a motive to kill
the victims.
The evidence as to planning and the manner of killing also supports the jury’s
findings. Officers found only Roy’s .40-caliber gun, but the forensic evidence showed
that Roy and Kira were shot with nine-millimeter ammunition. The officers found Roy’s
gun stored in a drawer in the bedroom closet, nowhere near Roy’s body and the two nine-
millimeter shell casings. Kira said that Mendez drew the gun from his pocket. The jurors
could reasonably conclude that Mendez brought his own gun to Roy and Kira’s
apartment that night with the plan to use it against them if a perceived need arose.
Mendez apparently determined that he needed to use lethal force after the victims could
not or would not disclose what happened to the cocaine. He left the bedroom and
returned to the living room, pulled the gun out of his pocket, ignored Roy’s attempt to
reason with him, demanded their cell phones, ordered Roy to the floor, and searched Roy
while pointing the gun at Kira. Mendez thus ensured that Roy was not armed and that
neither victim had a way to call for help. All of that evidence shows that Mendez had
plenty of time to reflect and reach a decision to kill Roy and Kira. And although Kira
7
could not remember anything after that, the forensic evidence shows that Mendez put the
gun to Roy’s head and shot him. Kira was shot in the back of the head. There is no
evidence of a struggle between Mendez and the victims. The evidence instead “indicates
an execution-style murder” and supports a reasonable inference that Mendez’s actions
were “‘cold and calculated.’” (People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 957,
disapproved on another ground by People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 110; accord,
People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 518 [“Both victims were killed by single contact
shots” to the head and neck, “a method sufficiently ‘“‘particular and exacting’”’ to
warrant an inference that defendant was acting according to a preconceived design”].)
Mendez focuses mostly on evidence found sufficient in other cases and contrasts it
with the evidence in this case. But his “comparison with other cases is of limited utility,
since each case necessarily depends on its own facts.” (People v. Thomas, supra, 2
Cal.4th at p. 516.) It is irrelevant whether other evidence might have strengthened the
People’s case, as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings.
(People v. Vargas (2020) 9 Cal.5th 793, 821-822.) The evidence here is more than
sufficient.
For all of these reasons, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury’s
finding that Mendez committed premeditated and deliberate murder and attempted
murder.
8
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
MILLER J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the jury's findings of premeditation and deliberation regarding the defendant's convictions for first degree murder and attempted premeditated murder.
Issues
Whether the record contains substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation to support the murder and attempted murder convictions.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The evidence instead “indicates an execution-style murder” and supports a reasonable inference that Mendez’s actions were “‘cold and calculated.’””