California Court of Appeal Mar 4, 2026 No. E084408Unpublished
Filed 3/4/26 P. v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E084408 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. RIF2101284) v. OPINION RAUL SANCHEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Matthew C. Perantoni,
Judge. Affirmed.
David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In 2024 a jury convicted Raul Sanchez of first degree murder, attempted murder,
and assault with a deadly weapon. He appealed his judgment. His attorney has filed a
brief under the authority of People v. Wende and Anders v. California1 informing this
court they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent
review of the record. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Late in the evening of February 27 and into the early morning of February 28,
2021, over a 100 people were partying in the Santa Ana River bottom. This included a
group of friends composed of A. Saucedo, E. Cabrera, D. Ortiz, R. Saldana, and
assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The prosecution also alleged that
Sanchez personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the murder and attempted
murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), that he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the
2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3 Unlabeled statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
4
commission of the attempted murder and assault (§12022.7, subd. (a)), and that there
were a number of aggravating factors.
The case proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, Almanza testified that she, Sanchez,
and Rosas got into a verbal dispute, but that she and Sanchez tried to leave before it
escalated. According to Almanza, as she and Sanchez were trying to leave, three men
jumped them. Almanza said that after she and Sanchez escaped the scuffle she saw
Sanchez holding a knife. She testified that she took the knife from him but did not know
what happened to it.
The jury found Sanchez guilty on all counts, and that the murder was premeditated
first degree murder. They further found that the attempted murder was not premeditated,
found the deadly weapon enhancement true as to the murder, and found the great bodily
injury enhancements true as to both the attempted murder and assault with a deadly
weapon. Sanchez previously waived a jury trial as to the aggravating factors, and the
court found them true. It also reduced the first degree murder to second degree on
Sanchez’s motion. (See § 1181, subd. (6).) It then sentenced Sanchez to an aggregate
indeterminate term of 26 years to life, composed of 15 years to life for the second degree
murder, seven years for the attempted murder, three years for the great bodily injury
enhancements, and one year for the deadly weapon enhancement. Under section 654, it
also imposed and stayed a three-year sentence for the assault.
5
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Sanchez on appeal, and counsel has filed a
brief under the authority of Wende and Anders, setting forth a statement of the case and a
summary of the facts and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.
Counsel’s brief directed our attention to four potential issues: (1) whether Sanchez’s
statements to the undercover officers after requesting a lawyer violated the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments (see Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292; People v. Orozco
(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802); (2) whether Sanchez’s counsel was ineffective for failing to
object on these grounds; (3) whether it was an unconstitutional interference with
Sanchez’s right to counsel for the undercover officers to recommend talking to police
without a lawyer; and (4) whether it was error to allow a police officer to narrate the
events of a cell phone video as it was played for the jury. (See People v. Son (2020) 56
Cal.App.5th 689, 696-698.) We offered Sanchez an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Sanchez.
6
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL J. We concur:
CODRINGTON Acting P. J.
MENETREZ J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for second-degree murder, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
Issues
Whether statements made to undercover officers after requesting a lawyer violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of statements made to undercover officers.
Whether undercover officers interfered with the defendant's right to counsel.
Whether it was error to allow a police officer to narrate a cell phone video for the jury.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Sanchez.”