People v. Vasquez CA3

Filed 7/19/23 P. v. Vasquez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Mono) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095599

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MFE20000775) v.

JOSUE ADALBERTO COREA VASQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Josue Adalberto Corea Vasquez drove to Jose Omar Hernandez Sanchez’s house in the middle of the night and waited for him to leave for work. Defendant brought an AK-47 assault rifle that he bought specifically for the purpose of murdering Sanchez. The two men were coworkers, and defendant felt disrespected by Sanchez during a brief period of time in which Sanchez was defendant’s supervisor. About an hour and a half after defendant parked near Sanchez’s house, Sanchez walked outside, started his car to warm it up, and returned to the house. Defendant took this opportunity to leave his car and position himself between a grouping of trees closer to the house. When Sanchez came back outside to leave for work, defendant took aim and said

1

something like, “You’re not so fucking invincible now, are you?” Before Sanchez could respond, defendant pulled the trigger, emptying the 30-round magazine and ending Sanchez’s life. A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder, found that the murder was committed by means of lying in wait, and also found that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing Sanchez’s death. The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life. On appeal, defendant challenges the lying-in-wait special circumstance as unconstitutional because it fails to genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty or LWOP and it does not reasonably justify a more severe sentence than other premeditated murders. Because our Supreme Court has “repeatedly rejected” this argument (People v. Casares (2016) 62 Cal.4th 808, 849, disapproved on another point in People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 214; see also People v. Carasi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1263, 1310; People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1148), we must do the same. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Defendant also asks this court to review the sealed transcript of in camera proceedings conducted by the trial court in connection with his Pitchess motion.1 Having done so, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the personnel files it reviewed contained no discoverable material. We therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Due to the nature of defendant’s appellate contentions, we need not provide a detailed recitation of the evidence adduced against him at trial. And because defendant