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 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Sanchez CA4/2

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: E084408

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (19.1K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/4/26 P. v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
E084408
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. RIF2101284)
v.
OPINION
RAUL SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Matthew C. Perantoni,

Judge. Affirmed.

David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1
In 2024 a jury convicted Raul Sanchez of first degree murder, attempted murder,

and assault with a deadly weapon. He appealed his judgment. His attorney has filed a

brief under the authority of People v. Wende and Anders v. California1 informing this

court they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent

review of the record. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Late in the evening of February 27 and into the early morning of February 28,

2021, over a 100 people were partying in the Santa Ana River bottom. This included a

group of friends composed of A. Saucedo, E. Cabrera, D. Ortiz, R. Saldana, and

M. Rosas (sometimes referred to as M. Lopez). In another group was I. Almanza, who

was there with her then boyfriend, Sanchez. Rosas and Almanza knew each other

because they had attended the same high school, and also because a year prior Rosas’s

then-girlfriend and Almanza fought each other.

As the first group was leaving, they passed Almanza and someone they believed

was her boyfriend—whom some members of the group later identified as Sanchez.

Almanza insulted Rosas. Rosas kept walking, but Sanchez followed, asking Rosas how

he knew Almanza. Sanchez challenged Rosas to fight, but Rosas declined. Sanchez then

called over another, larger man. The larger man put Rosas into a headlock, but Rosas

was able to get out of it.

1 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738 (Anders).

2
Most of Rosas’s group continued towards Cabrera’s car, but Saldana went to his

motorcycle. When Rosas escaped the larger man, the man then approached Saldana and

demanded his bike. When Saldana refused, the big man started hitting him. Saucedo

tried to intervene but was also attacked. Cabrera then got involved as well, and it turned

into a scuffle between multiple people. At some point both groups—Sanchez’s and

Saldana’s—were involved in two or three distinct fights. When the dust finally settled,

Saldana’s friend group saw him lying face down near his motorcycle. When Saucedo

went to check on Saldana, someone stabbed Saucedo. The group dragged Saldana to

Cabrera’s car and could tell he was severely injured. They drove directly to a hospital,

but Saldana passed away from his injuries.

Examination revealed Saldana suffered multiple stab wounds to his shoulder, arm,

and back, but the fatal stab wound was to his chest. Saucedo suffered a stab wound to his

left chest which punctured his lung, but survived.

Witnesses told police they saw a man with a gray sweatshirt and curly hair holding

a knife. However, police were not able to identify this potential assailant. Police then

conducted a warranted search of Almanza’s phone records and Instagram account, which

revealed a large number of contacts between her and Sanchez—who has curly hair.

Based on this, they also executed a warrant for Sanchez’s phone records, including his

location details. These records revealed that both Almanza and Sanchez’s phones were in

the area of the homicide at the relevant time, and leaving together after the homicide.

Police then presented four witnesses with a photo lineup that included a photo of

3
Sanchez, but only Rosas was able to positively identify Sanchez. Based on this, police

arrested Sanchez for attempted murder.

The day after arresting him, police put Sanchez in a cell with undercover officers.

The undercover officers then spoke to Sanchez about the case while the conversation was

being electronically monitored. Sanchez admitted to stabbing two people, one of whom

died. The officers also encouraged Sanchez to think hard about whether he wanted a

lawyer to represent him when talking to the police. After about an hour and a half, police

removed Sanchez from the cell, gave him Miranda2 warnings, and formally interviewed

him. Sanchez denied wearing a gray sweatshirt the night of the homicide and denied

stabbing anyone. At the end of the interview he requested a lawyer.

Sanchez then returned to the cell and continued talking to the undercover officers.

However, just five minutes later Sanchez told his jailers that he wanted to talk to the

interviewing officer again. After being given Miranda warnings for a second time,

Sanchez admitted he stabbed two people, but claimed it was in self-defense.

The Riverside County District Attorney charged Sanchez with premeditated

murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))3, attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)), and

assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The prosecution also alleged that

Sanchez personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the murder and attempted

murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), that he personally inflicted great bodily injury in the

2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

3 Unlabeled statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

4
commission of the attempted murder and assault (§12022.7, subd. (a)), and that there

were a number of aggravating factors.

The case proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, Almanza testified that she, Sanchez,

and Rosas got into a verbal dispute, but that she and Sanchez tried to leave before it

escalated. According to Almanza, as she and Sanchez were trying to leave, three men

jumped them. Almanza said that after she and Sanchez escaped the scuffle she saw

Sanchez holding a knife. She testified that she took the knife from him but did not know

what happened to it.

The jury found Sanchez guilty on all counts, and that the murder was premeditated

first degree murder. They further found that the attempted murder was not premeditated,

found the deadly weapon enhancement true as to the murder, and found the great bodily

injury enhancements true as to both the attempted murder and assault with a deadly

weapon. Sanchez previously waived a jury trial as to the aggravating factors, and the

court found them true. It also reduced the first degree murder to second degree on

Sanchez’s motion. (See § 1181, subd. (6).) It then sentenced Sanchez to an aggregate

indeterminate term of 26 years to life, composed of 15 years to life for the second degree

murder, seven years for the attempted murder, three years for the great bodily injury

enhancements, and one year for the deadly weapon enhancement. Under section 654, it

also imposed and stayed a three-year sentence for the assault.

5
DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Sanchez on appeal, and counsel has filed a

brief under the authority of Wende and Anders, setting forth a statement of the case and a

summary of the facts and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.

Counsel’s brief directed our attention to four potential issues: (1) whether Sanchez’s

statements to the undercover officers after requesting a lawyer violated the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments (see Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292; People v. Orozco

(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802); (2) whether Sanchez’s counsel was ineffective for failing to

object on these grounds; (3) whether it was an unconstitutional interference with

Sanchez’s right to counsel for the undercover officers to recommend talking to police

without a lawyer; and (4) whether it was error to allow a police officer to narrate the

events of a cell phone video as it was played for the jury. (See People v. Son (2020) 56

Cal.App.5th 689, 696-698.) We offered Sanchez an opportunity to file a personal

supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a

disposition more favorable to Sanchez.

6
DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAPHAEL
J.
We concur:

CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.

MENETREZ
J.

7