People v. Kerow CA4/1

Filed 3/28/24 P. v. Kerow CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081360

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD280819)

MOHAMED ABDIAZIZ KEROW,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter L. Gallagher, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with instructions. Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Namita Patel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Mohamed Abdiaziz Kerow guilty of first degree murder of his wife, Mona Salad Kuri. On appeal, Kerow solely challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence of deliberation and premeditation. We affirm and resolve this case by memorandum opinion, focusing on the factual and procedural background necessary for our analysis only. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854.) I. We review claims of insufficient evidence under the substantial evidence standard. (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) In a criminal case, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment for substantial evidence that would allow any reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357 (Zamudio).) To be “substantial,” the “evidence must be of ponderable legal significance” (Estate of Teed (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644), “reasonable, credible, and of solid value” (Zamudio, at p. 357). Such evidence can include not only circumstantial evidence, but also all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. (People v. Soriano (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 278, 286.) Reversal is only appropriate if “upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support” the conviction. (People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755.) “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought.” (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) Here, the only theory of first degree murder presented to the jury was that the killing was “willful, deliberate, and premeditated,” and willfulness is undisputed. (§ 189, subd. (a).) A killing is premeditated if the defendant “decided to kill before completing the act[s] that caused death.” (CALCRIM No. 521.) A killing is deliberate if the defendant “carefully weighed the considerations for and against [his or her] choice and, knowing the consequences, decided to kill.” (Ibid.) Thus, “[a]n intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it