People v. Muro CA2/3
Filed 5/13/21 P. v. Muro CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, B307128
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA035502) v.
MARIO CARLOS MURO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John J. Lonergan, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Victor J. Morse, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________
Mario Carlos Muro appeals from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1170.951 petition. We affirm the court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 1. The murders and Muro’s convictions In March 1996, Muro’s brother-in-law sold Muro a Buick Regal automobile. On March 24, 1996, Richard Lopez and Michael Mahome were in Compton, seated in a van that was stopped at a red light. A Latino man stood next to the van and fired multiple shots into it, killing both Mahome and Lopez. The shooter fled on foot and jumped into the front passenger seat of Muro’s Buick, which drove away. Muro called his brother-in-law and told him to report the Buick stolen. Based on eyewitness identifications and other evidence presented at trial, either Muro or a codefendant, Israel Magana, could have been the shooter. Prior to trial, however, Muro testified that he, Magana, and three other persons were driving in his Buick. He was seated in the front passenger seat. When the group arrived at the intersection of Acacia and Alondra, Muro saw the victims, with whom he had previously “ ‘had problems.’ ” He exited the Buick, ran to the van, and fired the fatal shots. He confessed because he was “ ‘through already, you know. I’m already looking at time, you know, and it ain’t right for an innocent man to get accused.’ ”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)