People v. Jimenez CA4/2

California Court of Appeal·Decided August 11, 2022·No. E078080·Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 8/11/22 P. v. Jimenez CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E078080

v. (Super.Ct.No. INF031973)

JAVIER BERNAL JIMENEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Dale R. Wells, Judge.

Affirmed.

Daniel J. Kessler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 Defendant and appellant Javier Bernal Jimenez appeals from the trial court’s

denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95. For the

reasons forth post, we affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On October 27, 2000, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder under

section 187, subdivision (a), and kidnapping under section 207, subdivision (a). The jury

also found that defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section

12022.5, subdivision (a)(1), and was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section

12022, subdivision (a)(1).

On November 29, 2000, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve 25 years to

life in state prison, plus a determinate prison term of 12 years and eight months. After

defendant appealed, on May 15, 2002, we affirmed the convictions but ordered that the

determinate portion of defendant’s sentence to be reduced to 11 years and eight months in

prison. (People v. Jimenez (May 15, 2002 E028628) [nonpub. opn.].)

On January 18, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section

1170.95. Defendant contended that the complaint or information filed against him

allowed the prosecution to proceed against him on the theory of felony murder, and that

the jury convicted him of murder under the theory of felony murder. Moreover,

defendant argued that due to the charges in section 189, he could not now be convicted of

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified

2 felony murder because: (1) he was not the actual killer, and (2) he was not a major

participant in the felony and/or he did not act with reckless indifference to human life.

After the trial court issued an order to show cause (OSC) why defendant’s petition

should not be granted, the People filed an OSC hearing brief opposing defendant’s

section 1170.95 petition, and a response to defendant’s petition in March 2019. Both

briefs had voluminous exhibits attached, including the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts

from the prior appeal. On October 1, 2021, defendant filed his OSC hearing brief in

support of his petition for resentencing.

On October 20, 2021, after an OSC hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s

petition.

On November 16, 2021, defendant filed his timely notice of appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

A. FACTUAL HISTORY

“The Testimony of Hector Reyes’s Girlfriend

“Hector Reyes, a drug dealer, and his girlfriend, a methamphetamine user, ‘dated’

for two weeks. During that time, Reyes visited her at her apartment in the company of

his friend, the victim. During each visit, he had a handgun with a clip and the victim had

a handgun that looked like a long-barreled western revolver with a wood handle. Also

during these two weeks, she, Reyes, and the victim visited Donald Beavers at the latter’s

2 The factual history is taken from our opinion in defendant’s prior appeal (People v. Jimenez, supra, E028628).

3 converted two-car garage.[3] Reyes had a pound of methamphetamine in a backpack;

however, after he left, he discovered that it was missing from the backpack. He sent the

victim back to Beavers’s to retrieve it; however, the victim got a flat tire on the way.

Reyes was later told that the victim had been spotted at a casino, giving away money and

‘dope.’

“Reyes became possessive of his girlfriend and she feared him, so she moved out

of her apartment, to which Reyes had a key, and moved in with a friend for a week. On

the evening of April 22, 1999, the girlfriend placed a phone call, from a pay phone at a

store, to Reyes on the cell phone he always carried with him, so Reyes would not know

where she was. Reyes told her that he had earlier gone to her apartment and picked up

her dog, whom she left behind when she moved in with her friend. He had dropped the

dog off at her mother’s, where he had been looking for her. Later that night, Reyes

picked up his girlfriend and her dog, a pit bull, and then she drove his station wagon to

her apartment. On the way, around 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., Reyes received a call on his cell

phone. From Reyes’s end of the conversation, she could tell that the victim had been

located.[4]

“Reyes had his girlfriend drive to the home of another friend. Reyes and the

friend mostly spoke outside the hearing range of the girlfriend, but she was able to hear

3“The garage of Beavers’s father’s house had been converted into a bedroom and bathroom where Beavers, his girlfriend, and their child lived.”

4 “The victim had been arrested for possession of one gram of methamphetamine, while visiting Reyes’s girlfriend, on April 10, and had been released from jail on April 22.”

4 the friend prevail upon Reyes to promise that there would be no violence that night.

Although the girlfriend wanted to go home, Reyes had her drive to a trailer park.

Jimenez and the victim were standing outside. Reyes got out of his car and spoke to the

victim. The girlfriend understood that they had come together because of the

methamphetamine that was missing from Reyes’s backpack. The victim got into the back

seat of Reyes’s car, between Reyes and his friend, without resisting and without having to

be pushed by Reyes. It appeared that everyone intended to go to the next destination in

an effort to resolve the problem of the missing methamphetamine.

“When they left the trailer park, Jimenez was driving because Reyes’s girlfriend,

fearing possible violence, told Reyes that she did not want to. Reyes said they were

going to Beavers’s garage. The victim wanted to explain that he had been in jail, because

his absence had made others assume that he had taken the missing methamphetamine.[5]

Reyes told the victim not to say anything until they got to Beavers’s. During the trip, she

heard a slap emanate from the back seat, then the victim’s voice. Reyes also made a call

on his cell phone during the five-minute trip.

“They arrived at Beavers’s around midnight. Beavers was outside and approached

Reyes’s car while Reyes got out. Reyes had put a small handgun[6] in his girlfriend’s lap,

and she had immediately handed it to Jimenez because she did not want it. She had seen

it once before in Reyes’s possession. Although the girlfriend did not want to be there and

5 “The girlfriend also testified that there were rumors ‘on the street’ to this effect. She said that Reyes was suspicious of her, Beavers and the victim.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Jimenez CA4/2, (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).

People v. Jimenez CA4/2 (People v. Jimenez CA4/2) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
People v. Wende
600 P.2d 1071 (California Supreme Court, 1979)
People v. Kelly
146 P.3d 547 (California Supreme Court, 2006)