Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 2, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Baltazar CA4/3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: G063884

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (8.4K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/2/26 P. v. Baltazar CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063884

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09NF1820)

ERNESTO BALTAZAR, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Affirmed.
Deanna L. Lopas, 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,
Christopher P. Beesley and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.

---

INTRODUCTION
In 2015, Ernesto Baltazar was convicted, pursuant to a negotiated
plea agreement, of voluntary manslaughter in connection with the shooting
death of Hector Bautista. In 2022, Baltazar filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 After conducting an evidentiary
hearing under section 1172.6, subdivision (d), the trial court denied Baltazar’s
resentencing petition on the ground that he had aided and abetted the killing
of Bautista with an intent to kill.
Baltazar appeals from the order denying his petition for
resentencing. He contends substantial evidence does not support the trial
court’s findings that he aided and abetted the killing of Bautista or did so with
an intent to kill. We conclude substantial evidence supports a finding that at
the time Baltazar’s plea was entered, he could have been guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of aiding and abetting an express malice murder under
current law. We therefore affirm.

FACTS
These facts are taken from the preliminary hearing transcript, a
transcription of a videorecorded police interview of Baltazar, and the
testimony of Elizabeth Caufman, Ph.D., given at the evidentiary hearing.
South Side Krooks (SSK) and Barrio Small Town (BST) are rival
gangs in Anaheim. SSK’s claimed territory abuts that of BST. Baltazar and
his family lived in a home on Claudina Street in an area claimed by both
gangs.

1 Further code references are to the Penal Code.

2
Baltazar and his brother Jose Baustista (Jose) were associated
with SSK.2 Baltazar had been friends with Peter Lara and Eric Lara, but they
later joined BST.
In May or June 2009, Baltazar’s father was the victim of a drive-
by shooting carried out by BST members. Baltazar’s father was struck in the
leg and had to be hospitalized. The vehicle used in the shooting was a gray
Ford Ranger truck (the Ford truck). The same truck was used by BST
members to conduct another drive-by shooting, this one targeting Baltazar.
During the shooting, someone from inside the truck yelled “Small Town.”
On June 26, 2009, the same Ford truck was used by BST members
in an attempt to run over Baltazar’s younger brother, Jesus. In response,
Baltazar, his brother Jose, and two others connected with SSK (Edgar Garcia
and Ivan Rodriguez3), decided to drive Garcia’s Cadillac Escalade (the
Escalade) into BST territory, find the driver of the truck, and “fuck him up.”
Garcia drove, Jose sat in the front passenger seat, Baltazar sat behind the
driver in the left side rear seat, and Rodriguez sat in the right side rear seat.
Garcia drove to the home of Eric Lara and Peter Lara on South
Olive Street in Anaheim, which was widely known as a BST hangout. They
arrived at the alley behind the Lara home, where they saw three men and one
woman standing in the alley. Baltazar and his group “talk[ed] shit” and

2 Anaheim police officer Kelly Phillips, a prosecution gang expert,

testified that, in his opinion, Baltazar and his brother Jose were active
participants in SSK on June 26, 2009. Phillips testified that Baltazar had a
MySpace account on which he had posts indicating he was associated with
SSK. Baltzar admitted in a police interview that he was associated with SSK
but “never banged or nothing.”
3 Rodriguez has an SSK tattoo on his chest.

3
someone from inside the Escalade yelled, “SSK.” Rodriguez believed he saw
Bautista, an active BST participant or member, open his shirt to display a
handgun.
Jose instructed Garcia to drive back to the Baltazar home on
Claudina Street in order for Jose to get a gun. At the Baltazar home, Jose
retrieved a gun and Baltazar grabbed a bat.4
At around 9:00 p.m., Garcia drove Baltazar, Jose, and Rodriguez
back to the alley behind the Lara home, where a small group of people were
gathered. Baltazar saw a gray truck which he believed had been the truck
involved in the prior drive–by shootings and the attempt to run over Jesus.
Baltazar hopped out of the Escalade, ran up to the Ford truck, and used the
bat to smash the truck’s windows.
Baustista, who owned the Ford truck, approached the Escalade
and began arguing with its occupants. Jose, who was still sitting in the front
passenger seat, rolled down the window and shot Bautista in the chest.
Bautista stumbled, fell to the ground, and said, “‘they shot me.’” Someone
from inside the Escalade yelled, “’SSK.’”
Baltazar jumped into the Escalade and Garcia drove everyone
back to the Baltazar home. During the drive, Baltazar announced, “I cracked
that fool’s windows.”
Within two to three minutes, police officers arrived at the scene
and found Bautista lying on his back with a gunshot wound to his chest. A

4 In the police interview, Baltazar initially said he had taken a

pipe from the house. Later he said, “to be honest, it wasn’t a pipe, it was a
bat.”

4
police officer asked, “‘who did this.’” A woman at the scene replied, “‘the
Baltazar Brothers.’” Bautista died from his wound.
During a recorded police interview, Baltazar said he was running
back to the Escalade after smashing the windows of the Ford truck when he
heard a gunshot. Baltazar said that when he heard the gunshot, he ducked
because he did not see who fired the shot, did not know if “they were shooting
back,” and did not want to be hit. Baltazar stated the commission of a drive-by
shooting by a rival gang was a “green light” and that he and his cohorts went
to the Lara home to retaliate against BST for trying to run over his brother.
Baltazar admitted he knew that when they went back to his house before the
shooting, that whoever retrieved the gun would use it to “get homeboy back.”
At the evidentiary hearing, Baltazar’s counsel called Elizabeth
Cauffman, Ph.D., to testify as an expert in adolescent brain development and
psychology. Cauffman is a professor of psychological science at University of
California, Irvine. She testified about the adolescent brain and cognitive
processes. She explained that psychiatrists “demarcate” adolescent years into
four periods: (1) 10 to 12 years is early adolescence; (2) 13 to 15 years is
middle adolescents, (3) 16 to 19 years is late adolescence, and (4) 20 to 25
years is adulthood or “‘transitional age youth.’” Baltazar, who was born in
December 1992, was 16 years old in June 2009, and therefore was in late
adolescence under this demarcation.
Caufman presented a power point presentation on the adolescent
brain and changes that occur over time. Cauffman testified to several
important points regarding adolescent cognition, impulses, and risk taking.
First, she testified that teenagers rely on the “primitive” part of their brain
(the amygdala) rather than more advanced part (the prefrontal cortex) as
adults do. As a consequence, teenagers react more impulsively than adults.

5
Teenagers will, for example, approach a threat rather than withdraw from it.
Second, Cauffman testified, teens are more prone to take risks and succumb to
peer pressure, particularly in the presence of their friends. Third, Cauffman
testified reliance on the primitive system causes adolescents to misread a cue
or an emotional situation, particularly in charged or negative emotional stress
situations.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I.
Charges and Guilty Plea to Manslaughter
Baltazar was charged by information with one count of murder
(§ 187, subd. (a), count 1), one count of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a),
count 2), and one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a), count 3).
As to the murder count, it was alleged the murder was committed by means of
discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(21)) and to
further the activities of a criminal street gang purpose (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)).
Enhancements were alleged for criminal street gang activity (§ 186.22, subd.
(b)(1)), gang member vicarious discharge of a firearm causing death (§
12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)), discharge of firearm from vehicle (§ 12022.55),
and personal use of firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
In March 2015, Baltazar entered into a negotiated plea
agreement. He pleaded guilty to street terrorism (count 2) and voluntary
manslaughter (count 3) and admitted the personal use of firearm
enhancement allegations. Baltazar offered the following as the factual basis
for the plea to voluntary manslaughter: “On June 26, 2009, I willfully and
unlawfully aided and abetted the unlawful killing of another human being,
Hector Bautista, Jr., I acted without malice and upon a sudden quarrel.

6
During the above offense I personally used a firearm.” He was sentenced to a
total of 31 years in prison.
II.
Resentencing Petition
In August 2022, Baltazar filed a form petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.6. He checked the boxes for the standard allegations.
Baltazar was appointed counsel. The District Attorney filed a response to
Baltazar’s petition and requested the trial court find that Baltazar had met
his prima facie burden and issue an order to show cause.
The trial court issued an order to show cause and, in January and
March 2024, conducted an evidentiary hearing on Baltazar’s resentencing
petition. The court received into evidence a two-volume transcript of the
preliminary hearing, a video recording and transcripts of Baltazar’s police
interview on June 27, 2009, crime scene and autopsy photographs, Bautista’s
death certificate, a copy of the PowerPoint presentation given by Dr.
Caufman, and a copy of Baltazar’s plea agreement form. Live testimony was
presented by Dr. Caufman.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Baltazar’s
resentencing petition. The court ruled that Baltazar’s statement in the factual
basis for his plea that he acted without malice did not preclude the
prosecution from contending Baltazar could presently be convicted of murder
or attempted murder notwithstanding the changes made to sections 188 and
189.
The court stated it had considered Dr. Cauffman’s testimony and
recognized Baltazar was 16 years old at the time of the offense. The court
commented that lack of impulse control and susceptibility to peer pressure “is
more [relevant] in a reckless indifference, major participant” case than in a

7
direct aiding and abetting case. The court found that Baltazar had
participated in a “collective effort to get the BST guys for the running over of
the brother and the shooting of the father” and had “a specific role in going
back to the house, getting a bat. ..... ” The court found too that after retrieving
the bat and gun from the house, Baltazar and the other participants went
“back with an intent to do a shooting” and “there was a direct aiding and
abetting in going to that house to retaliate and shoot up with an intent to
kill.”

DISCUSSION
I.
Resentencing Under Section 1172.6
By legislation effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature amended
the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences
theory of liability as a basis for a murder conviction. (Sen. Bill No. 1437
(2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4; see People v. Reyes (2023) 14
Cal.5th 981, 984 (Reyes).) The felony murder rule was amended “to ensure
that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer,
did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the
underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats.
2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f); see § 189, subds. (a), (3).) Section 188 was
amended to provide that, except in cases of felony murder, “in order to be
convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice
aforethought.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3), as amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 2.)
Section 1172.6 creates a procedural mechanism by which those
convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter who could not be
convicted under of murder or attempted murder under the law as amended

8
could retroactively seek relief. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.)
Section 1172.6 provides, “[a] person convicted of felony murder or murder
under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under
which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s
participation in a crime, attempted murder under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, or manslaughter may file a petition with the court that
sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder, attempted murder,
or manslaughter conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining
counts.” (§1172.6, subd. (a).)
To obtain relief under section 1172.6, a petitioner must file a
petition alleging these three conditions have been met: (1) the petitioner was
convicted based on a pleading “that allowed the prosecution to proceed under
a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a
person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime” (§ 1172.6, subd.
(a)(1)); (2) the petitioner was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or
manslaughter following a trial or plea agreement (id., subd. (a)(2)); and (3) the
petitioner could not now be convicted of murder or attempted murder as those
offenses are presently defined (id., subd. (a)(3).)
If the court determines the petitioner has made a prima facie
showing of entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause
and hold a hearing “to determine whether to vacate the murder, attempted
murder, or manslaughter conviction and to recall the sentence and resentence
the petitioner on any remaining counts in the same manner as if the
petitioner had not previously been sentenced.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(1).) “At the
hearing to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to relief, the burden of
proof shall be on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the

9
petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder under California law as
amended by the changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1,
2019.” (Id., subd. (d)(3).) At the evidentiary hearing, the resentencing court
sits as an independent fact finder. (People v. Vargas (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th
943, 951.)
If the prosecution does not sustain its burden of proof under
section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(1), then the court must vacate the prior
conviction and any allegations and enhancements attached to that conviction
and resentence the petitioner on the remaining charges. (§ 1172.6, subd.
(d)(3).)
“[T]he Legislature’s aim in the manslaughter context was to make
relief available to defendants who were convicted by plea or trial at a time
when the prosecution could have pursued a murder charge, but the only way
of doing so would have been a now invalid theory of imputed malice.” (People
v. Lezama (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 583, 590.) Thus, a petitioner who entered a
guilty plea to manslaughter is eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6
only if, at the time the plea was entered, the petitioner could have been guilty
of murder only by imputation of malice. (Lezama, supra, at p. 590.)

II.
Standard of Review
A trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6 petition following a
hearing under section 1172.6, subdivision (d) is reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard. (Reyes, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 988.) We review
the record in the light most favorable to the order denying the petition to
determine whether the evidence is reasonable, credible, and of solid value
such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a

10
reasonable doubt. (Ibid.) “‘Substantial evidence includes circumstantial
evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.’” (People v.
Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57.)
We imply any findings necessary to support the trial court’s order.
(People v. Therman (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1279; People v. Francis
(2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 873, 878.) “[W]e defer to the trial court’s implicit
credibility findings and accept all reasonable inferences from the evidence.”
(People v. Oliver (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 466, 482.)
“A reversal for insufficient evidence ‘is unwarranted unless it
appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial
evidence to support”’ the [fact finder]’s verdict.” (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43
Cal.4th 327, 357.)

III.
Substantial Evidence Supports the Trial Court’s Finding
That Baltazar Could Have Been Guilty of Aiding and
Abetting Express Malice Murder
A. Principles of Malice and Aiding and Abetting Murder
The trial court denied Baltazar relief on the ground the evidence
established he aided and abetted the murder of Bautista with “an intent to
kill”; that is, express malice murder.5 Because Baltazar pleaded guilty to
voluntary manslaughter, and he was not the perpetrator, the issue presented
is whether substantial evidence supports a finding that, at the time that plea

5 The trial court did not address and made no findings on a theory

of aiding and abetting an implied malice murder. It does not appear the
district attorney’s office argued an alternate theory of aiding and abetting an
implied malice murder.

11
was entered, he could have been guilty beyond reasonable doubt of aiding and
abetting an express malice murder.
Malice may be express or implied. (§ 188, subd. (a).) “Malice is
express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take
away the life of a fellow creature.” (Ibid.) “Malice is implied when no
considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the
killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.” (Ibid.)
“‘[D]irect aiding and abetting is based on the combined actus reus
of the participants and the aider and abettor’s own mens rea. [Citation.]’”
(Reyes, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 990–991.) Direct aiding and abetting liability
requires proof of (1) “‘the direct perpetrator’s actus reus—a crime committed
by the direct perpetrator,’” (2) “‘the aider and abettor’s mens rea’” and (3) “‘the
aider and abettor’s actus reus—conduct by the aider and abettor that in fact
assists the achievement of the crime.’” (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433,
467.) “[A]n aider and abettor’s mental state must be at least that required of
the direct perpetrator.” (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1118
(McCoy).)6
A defendant is liable as a direct aider and abettor of express
malice murder if the defendant aided or encouraged the murder with
knowledge of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and with the intent or

6 For aiding and abetting express malice murder, the perpetrator’s

criminal purpose need not have been murder. (McCoy, supra, 25 Cal.4th at
p. 1122.) “[W]hen a person, with the mental state necessary for an aider and
abettor, helps or induces another to kill, that person’s guilt is determined by
the combined acts of all the participants as well as that person’s own mens
rea. If that person’s mens rea is more culpable than another’s, that person’s
guilt may be greater even if the other might be deemed the actual
perpetrator.” (Ibid.)

12
purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of the
murder. (In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562, 579; McCoy, supra, 25 Cal.4th
1111, 1122.) Thus, for express malice murder, the aider and abettor’s mental
state must be express malice and the aider and abettor must have known the
perpetrator’s criminal purpose. (McCoy, supra, p. 1118.)
As applied to this appeal, those principles mean that for Baltazar
to be ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 based on express malice murder,
substantial evidence must support a finding that beyond reasonable doubt he
personally harbored express malice (People v. Lopez (2024) 99 Cal.5th 1242,
1848 [“a direct aider and abettor . . . must possess malice aforethought”]) and
he knew “the criminal intent of the perpetrator,” his brother, Jose (McCoy,
supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1118 [the accomplice must know “‘the full extent of the
perpetrator’s criminal purpose’”].)
B. The Evidence
Baltazar argues the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he might have harbored express malice. We disagree.
The record includes substantial evidence to support a finding that, beyond
reasonable doubt, Baltasar intended to kill and knew of Jose’s criminal
intent.7
It cannot be reasonably disputed that the motive for killing
Bautista was retaliation. The evidence established that BST members had

7 As to the first element of aiding and abetting express malice

murder—the perpetrator’s actus reus—the evidence showed that Jose fired
the gun and killed Bautista. As to Jose’s mens rea, the record establishes that
Jose acted with intent to kill. Jose aimed the gun at Bautista and shot him in
the chest, killing him. “‘The act of firing toward a victim at a close, but not
point blank, range “in a manner that could have inflicted a mortal wound had
the bullet been on target is sufficient to support an inference of intent to
kill.”’” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 733, 741.)

13
used the Ford truck owned by Bautista to conduct a drive–by shooting of
Baltazar’s father, a drive–by shooting of Baltazar, and an attempt to run over
Baltazar’s brother Jesus. Although the precise nature of Balatazar’s
relationship with SSK is disputed, Baltazar stated during the police interview
that he associated with SSK. And, in Baltazar’s words, BST and SSK had
been “enemies forever.” The attempt to run over Jesus was the last straw that
prompted Baltazar, as well as Jose, Garcia, and Rodriguez to seek revenge
and “fuck up” the driver of the truck.
When Baltazar and the group in the Escalade first drove off to the
alley behind the Lara home, Rodriguez said “[let]’s go fuck him up”—referring
to the driver of the Ford truck. At the alley, Baltazar and the others in the
Escalade “talk[ed] shit” and yelled “SSK.” Once it appeared that Bautista had
a gun, Jose instructed Garcia to drive back to the Baltazar residence for the
specific purpose of getting a gun. A reasonable inference is that Baltazar, who
was a passenger in the Escalade, heard Jose so instruct Garcia.
Once at the Baltazar home, Jose retrieved a gun belonging to his
father and Baltazar retrieved a bat. It is significant that after Jose retrieved
the gun, Baltazar, Jose, Garcia, and Rodriguez drove back to the alley behind
the Lara home. They obviously intended to do more than “talk shit” and yell:
A reasonable inference is that the purpose for going back to the Baltazar
home, retrieving the gun and bat, and then returning to the alley was to
attack and kill the person who drove the Ford truck or someone else
associated with BST. While it could be reasonably inferred that Jose retrieved
the gun for defense, we must accept the inference supporting the trial court’s
decision. (People v. Oliver, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 482.)
During his police interview, Baltazar made or agreed with five
inculpatory statements from which express malice and knowledge of Jose’s

14
criminal purpose could reasonably be inferred. First, when asked “[w]hat’s the
consequence of doing a drive-by,” Baltazar answered, “Green Light.” Baltazar
agreed the green light “rule” had been around for a long time and everyone
knew it. Second, Baltazar said the attempt to run over his brother was an act
of disrespect and, when asked “so your intentions were to go back there and
retaliate for the act of disrespect[ing] you,” Baltazar replied, “yeah.” Third,
when pressed to admit he knew somebody else had retrieved something from
Baltazar’s house, Baltazar said, “if that’s the gun, or whatever, well then I
guess, yeah. Somebody grabbed it, but other than that, you know, I don’t
know.” Fourth, also in reference to the gun, he said, “picking up, dropping off.
Right. That’s true, whatever. But where, I don’t know where the fuck they
stashing it.”
Fifth, and most critically, Baltazar replied “[w]ell yeah” when
asked, “you guys knew, and you guys knew when you went back to the house
the first time, that whoever got the gun, kept the gun for the purpose of going
out to, to get homeboy back. Right?”
Those passages from the police interview establish that Baltazar
knew Jose had a gun. Baltazar’s statement that “picking up, dropping off” the
gun was true is evidence indicated he knew Jose had a gun. Indeed, it was no
secret that Jose had a gun: During police interviews, Rodriguez said Jose had
retrieved a gun from the Baltazar residence and Garcia said he believed that
when Jose returned to the Escalade he had a firearm. Baltazar’s agreement
with the statement that he knew “somebody got the gun,” along with evidence
that the gun belonged to Baltazar’s father, the gun was kept at his home, and
Baltazar and Jose were the ones who got out of the Escalade and went into
their home to retrieve the bat and the gun, supports a reasonable inference
that Baltazar knew Jose had the gun.

15
By describing the attempt to run over his brother as an act of
disrespect, and by agreeing with the statement that his intention was to
retaliate for that act of disrespect, Baltazar confirmed he had a personal
motive for retaliation. That Baltazar had a personal motive is “inferentially
relevant to . . . disputed issues of intent.” (People v. Rogers (2006) 39 Cal.4th
826, 862; see People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4th 646, 707 [“evidence of motive
makes the crime understandable and renders the inferences regarding intent
more reasonable”], disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009)
45 Cal.th4 390m 421, fn. 22.)
A person on a “green light” is subject to attack by a gang member.
(People v. Pineda (2022) 13 Cal.5th 186, 229.) Although attack does not
necessarily mean killing, here, Jose retrieved a gun from his home and, as
Baltazar admitted, whoever had the gun was going to use it to “get homeboy
back.” Baltazar agreed with the statement that “you guys”—meaning
Baltazar, Jose, Garcia and Rodriguez—knew whoever got the gun was going
to fire it (“use it”) to retaliate (“get homeboy back”).. A reasonable inference is
that the gun was going to be used to shoot and kill the person who drove the
Ford truck in retaliation for the attacks on Baltazar, his father, and his
brother.
The evidence is thus reasonably susceptible to the inferences that
Baltazar intended to kill and knew, at least, that Jose harbored a criminal
intent of firing the gun at someone in the alley “to get homeboy back.” Those
inferences, which under the standard of review we must draw, support the
trial court’s denial of Baltazar’s resentencing petition.
The evidence was also sufficient to support a finding of an actus
reus. The Attorney General argues Baltazar smashed in the windows of the
truck in order to provoke a confrontation or to lure Bautista out so that Jose

16
could shoot him. The trial court declined to find that Baltazar’s role was to
lure out BST members. It is not unreasonable, however, to infer that
Baltazar’s role was to provoke a confrontation or to lure Bautista out (see
People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 626–627 [aiding and abetting included
luring the victim to murder location].) In any case, Baltazar aided and abetted
the murder of Bautista by identifying the Ford truck used by BST members in
the attacks and, armed with a bat, by serving as protection, if necessary, for
Jose, Garcia, and Rodriguez.
Baltazar points to evidence that he, Garcia, and Rodriguez were
surprised and confused when they heard the gunshot and believed they
perhaps were the intended targets. During the police interview, Baltazar said
he was running back to the Escalade after smashing the windows of the gray
truck when he heard the gunshot. Baltazar also points to evidence that he
expressed disbelief when, during his police interview, he was told Bautista
had died.
However, in a sufficiency of the evidence review, we affirm if
substantial evidence supports the order or judgment being appealed even if
contrary evidence would support reversal. (People v. Jennings (2010) 50
Cal.4th 616, 638–639; People v. Sifuentes (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 217, 233; see
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 169 [“the existence of contrary
evidence does not show that the trial court’s findings were not supported by
substantial evidence”].) Moreover, the trial court was the sole judge of witness
credibility. (People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387, 470.) The trial court
impliedly found that Baltazar, who lied and was evasive through most of the
police interview, was not being truthful in saying he was surprised when he
heard the gunshot and in expressing disbelief when told Bautista had died.

17
Baltazar admonishes us that in assessing the trial court’s reliance
on gang findings not to ignore the Legislature’s concerns expressed in
Assembly Bill No. 333, which “altered existing law regarding gang crimes and
enhancements in various ways.” (People v. Aguirre (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629,
714.)8 The trial court concluded, Assembly Bill No. 333 does not apply here
because it applies retroactively only to cases that were not yet final on its
effective date of January 1, 2022. (People v. Cardenas, (2025) 18 Cal.5th 797,
817.) In any event, without reference to gang expert testimony, other
evidence, including Baltazar’s own statements and gestures made during the
police interview, provide sufficient evidence to uphold the order denying
Baltazar’s petition for resentencing. Whatever might have been the nature of
BST and SSK—whether they were criminal street gangs or charitable

8 As explained in Aguirre, Assembly Bill No. 333 “‘narrowed the

definition of a “pattern of criminal [gang] activity” by requiring that (1) the
last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within
three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have
been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang
“members,” as opposed to just “persons”; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted
a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang
activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense. (§ 186.22,
subd. (e)(1), (2).) . . . Assembly Bill 333 [also] narrowed what it means for an
offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any
“common benefit” be “more than reputational.” (§ 186.22, subd. (g).)’” (People
v. Aguirre, (2025) 18 Cal.5th 629, 714.)

18
organizations—Baltazar said they were enemies, he associated with SSK, and
he, Jose, Garcia, and Rodriguez intended to retaliate against BST.9
Baltazar argues that in light of Caufman’s testimony, “[Baltazar]’s
understanding as to why Jose obtained the gun and how he intended to use it,
. . . cannot readily be gleaned by making an inference as to what an adult in
the same emotionally charged circumstance would have understood” and
“[Baltazar]’s specific intent can only be assessed with these developmental
limitations in mind.” The trial court was, of course, the sole judge of witness
credibility, and we must presume any implied findings and draw all inferences
in favor of the court’s decision. The trial court heard and considered
Caufman’s testimony and was in the better position to decide how it should
affect an assessment of the evidence.
In conclusion, we cannot say “‘upon no hypothesis whatever is
there sufficient substantial evidence to support”’ the order denying Baltazar’s
petition for resentencing. (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)

9 The trial court stated that although it would consider the gang

expert’s testimony, it did not need to rely on that testimony because Baltazar’s
police interview was enough to establish that Baltazar associated with SSK
and was with SSK members. The court stated it did not need to specifically
find that SSK was as criminal street gang in order to make a determination
on malice.

19
DISPOSITION
The order denying Baltazar’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

SANCHEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.

SCOTT, J.

20