People v. Rodriguez CA6

Filed 9/28/22 P. v. Rodriguez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H048117 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1652286)

v.

MIGUEL ANGEL CEJA RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Miguel Angel Ceja Rodriguez of second degree murder and assault with a firearm after he shot and killed a man at a park and wounded a bystander. He contends the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the murder victim’s prior convictions, and should have instructed the jury that a person can act more quickly in self-defense based on knowledge the aggressor previously threatened others. He also contends the trial court abused its discretion by declining to strike a firearm sentencing enhancement, and he points out the abstract of judgment does not reflect that the court struck the punishment for another sentencing enhancement. Finding no error aside from the clerical mistake defendant notes, we will order the abstract amended to accurately reflect the sentence imposed and affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND Armed with a semi-automatic handgun borrowed from a friend earlier that day, defendant approached Miguel Rojas-Lozano at a park. Witnesses recounted that Rojas- Lozano was sitting at a table playing cards and dice when defendant tapped him on the

shoulder, hit him in the face, and shot him multiple times. Rojas-Lozano was struck by nine bullets and died at the scene. A man standing nearby was shot in both feet. Defendant was charged with first degree murder. The prosecution presented evidence he went to the park to shoot Rojas-Lozano for revenge. Defendant was angry because Rojas-Lozano had groped defendant’s girlfriend at a bar the night before and when she protested, he broke a bottle over her head. Defendant offered a self-defense theory. Testifying on his own behalf, he said he went to the park to ask Rojas-Lozano to reimburse money his girlfriend lost when she was unable to work after the assault. He brought the gun because he knew Rojas-Lozano to be a dangerous person who had served time in jail and carried a gun himself, sometimes brandishing it at people. When he confronted Rojas-Lozano, defendant saw him reach into his waistband. Thinking Rojas-Lozano was pulling a gun, he feared for his life and he fired to defend himself. The jury acquitted defendant on the first degree murder charge but rejected his self-defense argument and convicted him of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187). It also convicted him of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)) and found true the allegations that he discharged a firearm causing death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)); personally used a handgun (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)); and inflicted great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to forty years to life in prison, consecutive to three years. II. DISCUSSION A. Defendant Did Not Object to the Evidentiary Ruling He Now Challenges The trial court ruled in limine that to bolster his self defense argument— specifically, to show his fear of Rojas-Lozano was reasonable—defendant could introduce evidence of prior dangerous conduct committed by Rojas-Lozano. But it excluded evidence that the murder victim, Rojas-Lozano, had been convicted of several criminal offenses. During the defense case, several police officers testified about 2