The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, has issued a modified opinion in the case of *People v. Daniel Orozco*, upholding his convictions for murder and attempted murder while reversing his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder. The court also denied Orozco’s petition for rehearing.
The case stems from a drive-by shooting in gang territory. Orozco was charged with the murder of Bryan Mares, the attempted murder of Kevin Garcia, and conspiracy to commit murder.
The Incident and Initial Charges
The court’s opinion details the events leading to the charges. On March 9, 2019, Orozco, along with Adrian Nunez, Isaac Miranda, and Anthony Martinez Garibo, drove into rival gang territory. Martinez Garibo, the shooter, fired at Kevin Garcia, wounding him. The group then fled. They returned to the same area and Martinez Garibo shot and killed Bryan Mares.
A witness provided a description of Orozco’s car, allowing police to quickly locate the vehicle and apprehend Orozco and his companions. Officers found the gun, magazine, and spent casing, which matched the bullets used in the shootings.
The Conspiracy Charge and Reversal
The most significant aspect of the court’s ruling is the reversal of Orozco’s conspiracy conviction. The court found that the prosecution’s addition of this charge, on the day of trial, was improper because it was not supported by evidence presented at the preliminary hearing.
The court emphasized that for a conspiracy conviction, there must be evidence of an agreement between the individuals involved to commit a crime. In this case, the court determined that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, which did not include a confession from Martinez Garibo (which was later suppressed), was insufficient to establish such an agreement. The court stated that without Martinez Garibo’s confession, there was no evidence that Orozco agreed with anyone to kill someone. They were just together in a car in rival gang territory.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Rejected
Orozco argued that his trial lawyer was ineffective because he introduced Martinez Garibo’s confession, even though it had been suppressed. The court rejected this argument, stating that the lawyer’s decision was a strategic one aimed at presenting the best possible defense under difficult circumstances. The defense strategy was to argue that Orozco was too intoxicated to form the criminal intent to commit the crimes. The court noted that Orozco agreed with this plan and did not identify a better strategy on appeal.
The court highlighted the overwhelming evidence against Orozco, including his ownership of the car, his presence at the scene, and the matching of evidence to the shootings. Faced with this evidence, the attorney made the strategic decision to introduce the confession to support the intoxication defense.
Premeditation and Deliberation Arguments Dismissed
Orozco also claimed the prosecutor misstated the law in the opening summation. The court assumed the prosecutor was in error, but stated that it could not have affected the verdict. Orozco’s defense was not that the decision was sudden and rash, but that he was too drunk to make any decision at all. The jury accepted the prosecution’s view of the facts.
Attempted Murder Sentence Upheld
Orozco also challenged his life sentence for attempted murder, claiming he did not have proper notice that the prosecution was seeking to convict him of attempted murder. The court rejected this argument, stating that Orozco had sufficient notice of the charges and potential sentence. The court cited the case of *People v. Houston*, which established that defendants forfeit this claim when they receive adequate notice of the charges and potential sentence. The court found that Orozco was fully aware of the prosecution’s intent to pursue the maximum sentence, as evidenced by his own sentencing memorandum.
Conclusion
In summary, the Court of Appeal reversed Orozco’s conspiracy conviction, but upheld his convictions for murder and attempted murder. The court found that the trial court erred in allowing the conspiracy charge to be added. The court also rejected Orozco’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper sentencing. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.