People v. Tillman CA3

Filed 3/26/26 P. v. Tillman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C101169

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21CF00078)

DIONTANAE JEROME TILLMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Diontanae Jerome Tillman shot and killed Kevin Murillo while robbing him of cocaine. A jury found defendant guilty on two counts of murder (one based on malice and the other based on felony murder) and one count of robbery. The jury also found various firearm enhancement allegations to be true, including that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing Murillo’s death. The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life in state prison.

1

Defendant now contends (1) the trial court erred in admitting testimony about the possible meaning of his teardrop tattoo, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in (a) failing to object to the tattoo evidence on the grounds asserted in this appeal, and (b) failing to object to certain misrepresentations purportedly made by the prosecutor during his closing and rebuttal arguments. We conclude defendant’s first contention is forfeited, and he has not established ineffective assistance of counsel. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND During a post-arrest police interview, defendant confessed to shooting Murillo multiple times and admitted that he did so while robbing him of cocaine. Our recitation of relevant facts is based on that confession and on undisputed corroborating evidence. On January 5, 2021, at around 6:30 p.m., defendant and three others drove to a convenience store so that defendant could rob Murillo. Defendant set up the robbery by contacting Murillo on social media and agreeing to buy an ounce and a half of cocaine from him for $1,250. About 30 minutes before meeting Murillo at the convenience store, defendant responded to a text message from a girlfriend, saying that he was going to “hit a lash, RQ.” One of the detectives who interviewed defendant testified that “lash” was street slang for robbery and “RQ” was an abbreviation for “real quick.” Defendant confirmed this understanding during the interview when he admitted that he “ ‘went there to rob him.’ ” Defendant said he viewed Murillo as a “ ‘soft’ ” person who pretended to be hard. The group pulled up next to Murillo’s car, and defendant got into Murillo’s front passenger seat. He had a loaded .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun with a 15-round magazine in his jacket pocket. Defendant asked Murillo: “ ‘Do you have the stuff?’ ” Murillo told him it was inside the passenger side door pocket. Defendant grabbed the cocaine and then saw that Murillo had pulled a gun on him. During the interview, defendant said he was thinking, “ ‘Do you know who I am?’ ” In addition to his gun,