People v. Camerano CA2/2

Filed 3/11/21 P. v. Camerano CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B307107

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA171892-01) v.

RAYMOND CAMERANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Raymond Camerano (defendant) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief under Penal Code section 1170.951 after briefing and a hearing at which he was represented by counsel. We conclude there was no error and affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 I. Facts A. The underlying crime On June 3, 1998, defendant and a number of fellow gang members were driving through rival gang territory in a Cadillac registered to defendant. They spotted “Randolph Cisneros, a young deaf-mute man,” and gestured to him “to come to the car.” “Cisneros was about a foot from the passenger side of the car, and it appeared that he was trying to understand what the occupants of the car were saying” when shots rang out. “Cisneros was shot three times and died as a result of two gunshot wounds to the left side of his back. The shots were consistent with having been fired by someone seated in a car.” B. Charging, conviction and appeal The People charged defendant with the first degree murder of Cisneros (§ 187, subd. (a)), and further alleged the special circumstance that the murder was perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle with the intent to inflict death (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(21)) and that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder, and found both of the further allegations to be true. In light of the special circumstance finding, the trial court sentenced defendant to prison for life without the possibility of parole, plus an additional one-year sentence for the firearm enhancement. Defendant appealed his conviction and argued, among