People v. Zaragoza CA3

Filed 12/8/23 P. v. Zaragoza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097573

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRCNV19990014142 & v. 076824A )

LOUIS RANGEL ZARAGOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Here we affirm the trial court’s post judgment order denying the resentencing petition of defendant Louis Rangel Zaragoza. The jury’s finding that defendant intentionally fired the gun proximately causing the murder victim’s death implicitly included a determination that defendant was the actual killer. “In February 2001, a San Joaquin County jury found defendant Louis Rangel Zaragoza guilty of the 1999 first degree murder of David Gaines and the robbery of

1

William Gaines. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189.)1 The jury found true the robbery-murder and lying-in-wait special circumstances—making defendant eligible for the death penalty (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15), (17)(A))—and also concluded that defendant personally used a handgun and caused a death in the commission of the murder and robbery. (Former §§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d).) Following the penalty phase trial, the jury returned a verdict of death.” (People v. Zaragoza (2016) 1 Cal.5th 21, 24.) In 2016, the California Supreme Court reversed the death verdict due to an “error in the death- qualification of the jury, but otherwise affirm[ed]” the judgment. (Id. at p. 25.) At the resentencing, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison plus life without the possibility of parole. In 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).2 The trial court denied defendant’s petition, because the jury’s section 12022.53, subdivision (d) determination meant the jury had found defendant was the actual killer. Defendant timely appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his petition at the prima facie stage. Specifically, he contends the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding by considering the facts in the California Supreme Court’s opinion and relying on jury findings such as lying in wait that do not conclusively demonstrate he was ineligible for relief.