People v. Tafoya CA3

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Tafoya CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C070739

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F08863)

v.

ALFREDO DANIEL TAFOYA,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury rejected defendant Alfredo Daniel Tafoya’s imperfect self-defense or defense of another and convicted him of the second degree murder of two young men at a quinceañera populated by both Norteño and Sureño gang members. On appeal, he contends the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to give a defense instruction on antecedent threats made by Norteños. We disagree that the modified instruction accepted by defense counsel constituted ineffective assistance of counsel or reversible error. Because we conclude there was no prejudice, we affirm the judgment. FACTS Most of the facts recited by the parties are not relevant to the solitary issue on appeal. There is no dispute that defendant shot Carlos Montes and Efrain Zambrano at a

1

quinceañera in the Estrellita Ballroom in Galt on November 28, 2009. The alleged instructional error relates to imperfect self-defense/defense of another and therefore defendant’s unreasonable belief that his friend, Aztek, was at risk of death or great bodily injury. We will describe the relevant facts in response to the Attorney General’s contentions that there was no evidence defendant’s “attacks on the victims were prompted by his knowledge of the Norte[ñ]o and Sure[ñ]o history,” no evidence that “ ‘historical knowledge of another gang’s prior violence or threats’ was ‘relevant to its determination of his beliefs at the time he acted,’ ” and no substantial evidence “that antecedent threats by Norte[ñ]o gang members precipitated or factored into [defendant’s] actual yet unreasonable beliefs.” In fact, with members of both Norteño and Sureño gangs in attendance at the quinceañera, the record is replete with evidence of gang rivalries, threats, and reactions. The gang expert explained that Sureño gang members are outnumbered four or five to one in the Sacramento area. Defendant kept a crude Sureño manifesto in his composition book that was admitted as evidence at trial. The expert translated many of the entries for the benefit of the jury, which otherwise would have been unable to understand the gang vernacular. Suffice it to say, defendant was well-steeped in the gang culture, hateful toward Norteños, and resolute in his desire to gain respect and to protect his territory. Uninvited, defendant and Aztek, both sporting blue, showed up at the quinceañera and were admitted. Defendant hid a firearm under his peacoat. He danced with several girls, drank, and appeared tipsy. He talked to another Sureño, Jose Pimentel, and introduced him to a friend in a blue hat. Video cameras at the ballroom captured a lot, but not all, of what happened. A 12-year-old girl also filmed some of the fight that precipitated the shooting. Defendant danced with Vanessa Garcia, Candy Porras, and Llesenia Calderon. They reported that Aztek was wearing a blue hat, but so were others. Porras testified that someone wearing a red hat approached Aztek saying, “Norte.” She saw others approach