People v. Mendez CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 10/15/25 P. v. Mendez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E084226

v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF2201221)

ROMAN RALPH MENDEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. F. Paul Dickerson III,

Judge. Affirmed.

Robert L.S. Angres, 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, Eric A. Swenson and Elana

Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 A jury convicted Roman Ralph Mendez of the first degree murder of Jason Roy

and the attempted premeditated murder of Kira C. Mendez argues that the record does

not contain substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation with respect to either

conviction. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND

The events underlying Mendez’s convictions took place in October 2022. Roy

and Kira were in a romantic relationship and had been living together for one and one-

half years. Mendez is the former boyfriend of Roy’s sister. Mendez and Roy’s sister had

not been a couple for several months, but he and Roy continued to see each other.

Mendez and Roy would “hang out,” play video games online, or drink together. But Kira

did not trust Mendez and did not like being around him. Mendez and Roy were involved

in some sort of “drug activity” together.

Mendez arrived at Roy and Kira’s apartment after midnight one night. Kira was in

the bedroom and could see Roy and Mendez in the living room; the bedroom had no

door. The two men were having a casual conversation and preparing some marijuana to

smoke. Roy brought a marijuana cigar to Kira in the bedroom, and she smoked some and

took it back to Roy in the living room. Roy and Mendez “were having a business

conversation.” Kira tried to stay out of Roy’s “business,” and Roy tried to keep her away

from it, so she did not overhear any details. At some point, Mendez came into the

bedroom and asked Kira “what happened to the stuff that he gave” Roy. She understood

2 that Mendez was referring to cocaine. (Although Roy tried to keep her away from his

business, she had seen cocaine around.) She told Mendez that she had “‘no clue about

what [they had] going on.’” He continued to press her and insisted that she knew

something. Roy stepped between Mendez and Kira and said that Kira had “nothing to do

with this” and that it was not her place to answer Mendez’s questions. Mendez continued

to insist that Kira knew something, and she again told him that she did not know

anything.

Mendez then returned to the living room, pulled a gun out of his pocket, and

pointed it at Roy and Kira. Roy appeared to be shocked and said something like, “‘Are

you serious?’ . . . ‘Do you really have to take it there?’” He was not confrontational or

aggressive with Mendez. Roy and Kira took a few steps into the living room, and

Mendez asked for their cell phones. Roy did not own a cell phone, but Kira handed her

phone to Mendez. Mendez ordered Roy to the ground, and Roy lay face down. Mendez

pointed the gun at Kira as he searched Roy’s pockets. According to Kira’s trial

testimony, the next thing that she remembered was waking up on the floor in the living

room. She could feel that she was bleeding from the back of her head and knew that she

had been shot. She crawled out of the apartment and yelled for help. A neighbor called

911, and Kira identified Mendez as the shooter during the recorded call. The neighbor

also saw Roy, who was unresponsive, inside the apartment.

3 The responding police officers found Roy lying on his back with a gunshot wound

to his head. They did not find any weapons on him or around him, but they found a nine-

millimeter shell casing on the floor near him. They found another nine-millimeter shell

casing on the floor next to the living room wall. Kira said that Roy had one gun.

Officers found the gun in a drawer in the bedroom closet. The gun used .40-caliber

ammunition.

According to the forensic pathologist, Roy had an entrance wound in front of his

left ear and an exit wound on the right side of his head. The entrance wound was a

contact shot, so the gun’s muzzle was touching Roy’s skin or was near his skin when it

was fired. The gunshot wound caused his death. Roy had some scars and a few scabs on

his body but no other wounds.

Kira was treated for a depressed skull fracture and brain hemorrhaging as a result

of the gunshot wound to the back of her head. She had bullet fragments embedded in the

soft tissue of her scalp.

The People charged Mendez with the murder of Roy, the attempted premeditated

murder of Kira, and unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664,

29800, subd. (a)(1); unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.) With respect

to the murder and attempted murder counts, the operative information alleged that

Mendez personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury or

death to another person. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).)

4 In April 2024, a jury found Mendez guilty of first degree murder, attempted

premeditated murder, and the firearm possession offense.1 The jury also found the

firearm enhancements true. The trial court sentenced Mendez to a determinate term of 16

months in prison and an indeterminate term of 82 years to life in prison.

DISCUSSION

Mendez contends that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support a

finding of premeditation and deliberation with respect to his murder and attempted

murder convictions. We disagree.

“‘An intentional killing is premeditated and deliberate if it occurred as the result of

preexisting thought and reflection rather than unconsidered or rash impulse.’ [Citation.]

The reflection may be arrived at quickly; it need not span a specific or extended period of

time.” (People v. Lopez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 339, 354-355.) “‘“The true test is not the

duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each

other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly.”’”

(People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 332.)

Evidence of planning, preexisting motive, and the manner of killing bears on

whether a murder or attempted murder was premeditated and deliberate. (People v.

Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 26-27 (Anderson); People v. Gonzalez (2012) 54 Cal.4th

643, 663-664.) But those three factors—referred to as the Anderson factors—“are

1 The court instructed the jury on only one theory of first degree murder—willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder.

5 descriptive and neither normative nor exhaustive,” so “reviewing courts need not accord

them any particular weight.” (People v. Halvorsen (2007) 42 Cal.4th 379, 420.) The

Anderson factors are merely “a framework to aid in appellate review,” and they do not

“define the elements of first degree murder or alter the substantive law of murder in any

way.” (People v. Perez (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1117, 1125.)

We review the jury’s finding of premeditation and deliberation for substantial

evidence. (People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056, 1068-1069.) We review “the

entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it

contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational

trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (People v. Kipp

(2001) 26 Cal.4th 1100, 1128.) We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the

judgment, and we defer to the jury’s credibility determinations and resolution of conflicts

in the evidence. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)

Mendez argues that there is insufficient evidence of each Anderson factor, but we

disagree. With respect to motive, the record shows that Mendez and Roy were involved

in “drug activity” together, and the two had a disagreement over missing cocaine.

Mendez believed that Kira knew where the cocaine was, and Roy and Kira insisted that

she knew nothing about it. Mendez eventually grew frustrated with their denials and

drew his gun. The jury could reasonably infer that Mendez shot the victims because he

believed that they had taken the drugs. (See People v. Bolin, supra, 18 Cal.4th at

6 pp. 309-310, 332 [motive evidence showed that the defendant killed his partner in the

marijuana trade right after the partner revealed the marijuana crop to strangers].) The

jury also could reasonably infer that Mendez shot Roy because he was responsible for the

missing cocaine, and Mendez tried to kill Kira because she witnessed Roy’s killing.

Either reasonable inference would lead to the conclusion that Mendez had a motive to kill

the victims.

The evidence as to planning and the manner of killing also supports the jury’s

findings. Officers found only Roy’s .40-caliber gun, but the forensic evidence showed

that Roy and Kira were shot with nine-millimeter ammunition. The officers found Roy’s

gun stored in a drawer in the bedroom closet, nowhere near Roy’s body and the two nine-

millimeter shell casings. Kira said that Mendez drew the gun from his pocket. The jurors

could reasonably conclude that Mendez brought his own gun to Roy and Kira’s

apartment that night with the plan to use it against them if a perceived need arose.

Mendez apparently determined that he needed to use lethal force after the victims could

not or would not disclose what happened to the cocaine. He left the bedroom and

returned to the living room, pulled the gun out of his pocket, ignored Roy’s attempt to

reason with him, demanded their cell phones, ordered Roy to the floor, and searched Roy

while pointing the gun at Kira. Mendez thus ensured that Roy was not armed and that

neither victim had a way to call for help. All of that evidence shows that Mendez had

plenty of time to reflect and reach a decision to kill Roy and Kira. And although Kira

7 could not remember anything after that, the forensic evidence shows that Mendez put the

gun to Roy’s head and shot him. Kira was shot in the back of the head. There is no

evidence of a struggle between Mendez and the victims. The evidence instead “indicates

an execution-style murder” and supports a reasonable inference that Mendez’s actions

were “‘cold and calculated.’” (People v. Hawkins (1995) 10 Cal.4th 920, 957,

disapproved on another ground by People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101, 110; accord,

People v. Thomas (1992) 2 Cal.4th 489, 518 [“Both victims were killed by single contact

shots” to the head and neck, “a method sufficiently ‘“‘particular and exacting’”’ to

warrant an inference that defendant was acting according to a preconceived design”].)

Mendez focuses mostly on evidence found sufficient in other cases and contrasts it

with the evidence in this case. But his “comparison with other cases is of limited utility,

since each case necessarily depends on its own facts.” (People v. Thomas, supra, 2

Cal.4th at p. 516.) It is irrelevant whether other evidence might have strengthened the

People’s case, as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings.

(People v. Vargas (2020) 9 Cal.5th 793, 821-822.) The evidence here is more than

sufficient.

For all of these reasons, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury’s

finding that Mendez committed premeditated and deliberate murder and attempted

murder.

8 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENETREZ J.

We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

MILLER J.