P. v. Salazar

Filed 1/19/07  P. v. Salazar CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  Gary B. Tranbarger, Judge.  Affirmed as to defendant Jose Albert Camarena.  Affirmed as modified as to defendant Alberto Hernandez Salazar.

            Steven Schorr, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jose Albert Camarena.

            Lynda A. Romero, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Alberto Hernandez Salazar.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Pat Zaharopoulos, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            A jury found defendants and appellants Jose Albert Camarena and Alberto Hernandez Salazar (hereafter jointly referred to as defendants and individually referred to by last name) guilty of murder in connection with the shooting death of Pedro Bravo.^[1]  The jury found defendant Salazar guilty of first degree murder and further found true a special circumstance allegation that he committed the murder while an active participant in a criminal street gang and to further the activities of that criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(22)).^[2]  The jury found defendant Camarena guilty of second degree murder.  As to both defendants, the jury found true special allegations that each defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and committed the crime for the benefit of and with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist any criminal conduct of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)).^[3]  The trial court sentenced defendant Salazar on the first degree murder conviction to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life on the finding that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and caused death.  The trial court sentenced defendant Camarena to serve 15 years to life on his conviction for second degree murder plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life on the finding that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm and caused death.^[4]

            Defendants individually and jointly raise various claims of error in this appeal, the details of which we recount below in our discussion of those claims.  We conclude, for reasons we now explain, that except for two minor sentencing issues raised by defendant Salazar, defendants' claims are meritless.  Therefore, we will affirm the judgment as to both defendants but with modifications as to defendant Salazar.

FACTS

            The pertinent factual details are undisputed.  On January 16, 2003, about 8:30 p.m., 19-year-old Pedro Bravo left his house to buy cigarettes.  While walking on Hastings Boulevard, Mr. Bravo was shot in the chest and killed.  Law enforcement officers recovered four shotgun shell casings from the scene of the shooting, two of which were found under Mr. Bravo's body.  Two women who lived in the area told the investigating officers that they had heard the shotgun blasts and shortly after saw a small white pickup truck driving away from the area.

Two days after Pedro Bravo was killed, law enforcement officers arrested defendant Camarena in an unrelated incident for possession of a sawed-off shotgun.  Forensic examination of the shotgun shell casings recovered in connection with the shooting of Pedro Bravo revealed that they had been fired from defendant Camarena's sawed-off shotgun.  On January 29, 2003, law enforcement officers arrested defendant Salazar, also in an incident unrelated to the shooting of Pedro Bravo, after they found him in possession of a loaded semiautomatic handgun.

When questioned by law enforcement officers, both defendants initially denied any involvement in the shooting of Pedro Bravo.  Eventually, defendant Camarena admitted that he was in his truck, driving along Hastings Boulevard with â€