P. v. Paredes

Filed 7/10/06 P. v. Paredes CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert M. Martinez, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Noah P. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Carlos Paredes was convicted of two counts of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code,[1] § 192, subd. (a)) for causing the deaths of Monique Almanza and Raymond Flores. On appeal, he challenges his conviction for the voluntary manslaughter of Almanza on the basis that the doctrine of transferred intent was inapplicable; claims that the trial court erred in providing additional instruction on transferred intent; and contends that the trial court violated Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely) by basing his sentence on facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by Paredes. We conclude that Paredes was properly convicted of voluntary manslaughter; follow California Supreme Court guidance with respect to Blakely; and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2004, while riding in a sport utility vehicle, Paredes shot and killed Monique Almanza and Raymond Flores as they drove a car on the 71 freeway in Pomona. The shooting was preceded by conflict between Flores and Paredes and his companions, three male minors. Flores threatened at least one of the minors, Paredes's cousin. The clash culminated in Paredes's vehicle, which was being driven by one of the minors, pulling alongside Flores's car on the freeway. Paredes shot multiple rounds into Flores's car, killing both occupants.

Paredes was charged with first degree special circumstances murder. (§§ 187, 190.2, subds. (a)(3) & (a)(21).) Paredes did not contest that he shot into Flores's car, but his counsel argued self-defense, heat of passion, and provocation. The jury was instructed on first degree murder with special circumstances, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. The trial court gave CALJIC No. 8.65, concerning transferred intent. The jury asked questions about transferred intent, leading the trial court to repeat and amplify CALJIC No. 8.65 over defense objection. Soon thereafter, the jury convicted Paredes of voluntary manslaughter of both victims. Paredes appeals.

DISCUSSION

I. Transferred Intent

Transferred intent is defined by CALJIC No. 8.65 as follows: â€