P. v. Mendoza CA2/4
Filed 4/22/13 P. v. Mendoza CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B239378
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA111663) v.
VINCENT DAVID MENDOZA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael A. Cowell, Judge. Affirmed. Mark Yanis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________________
Appellant Vincent Mendoza appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of kidnapping, attempted premeditated murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and conspiracy. He contends the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he had the specific intent to kill during his participation in the events underlying the charges, as required for attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder. We find sufficient evidence supporting the jury’s verdict and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On August 4, 2009, victim Christina Martinez was visiting the home of her boyfriend’s cousin. At approximately 2:00 a.m., appellant Vincent Mendoza, his codefendant Eddie Meraz, and Jose Ayala arrived at her location in order to take her home. Martinez had worked and socialized with Ayala over the previous two to three months. She had met appellant and Meraz just weeks before the incident through mutual friends. Instead of going straight home, Martinez agreed to accompany the men to the beach and got into a car with them. After she noticed they were not driving toward the beach, she asked the men where they were going; no one replied. Eventually, Ayala told Martinez they would have to tie her up. When she resisted, Ayala stopped the car, put a knife to her neck, and told her to stop moving or he would kill her. Appellant held Martinez’s hands while Meraz tied them. Appellant then pulled out a syringe and asked Ayala about where to inject Martinez. Appellant then injected Martinez five to ten times in the neck, refilling the syringe in between injections. Martinez then began to choke and gag. The car eventually stopped near a canyon. Ayala and Meraz pulled Martinez out of the car and her hands were untied. She was then thrown to the ground and beaten. Although she did not see who was beating her, Martinez believed it was more than one of the men and possibly all three of them. She was then hit over the head with a hard object and lost consciousness. When she was regaining consciousness, two of the men picked her up and pushed her over the side of a cliff. She fell approximately 12 feet down, and the three men then climbed down to her. Ayala accused her of setting him up and trying
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)