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 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Ibarra CA5

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: F088467

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (0)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (7.9K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/11/26 P. v. Ibarra CA5

              NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                         F088467
       Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                         (Super. Ct. No. CR-22-002035)
                v.

JUAN FRANCISCO TAPIA IBARRA,                                                          OPINION
       Defendant and Appellant.

                                               THE COURT*
     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Dawna

Reeves, Judge.
Cliff Gardner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-

• Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Harrell, J. Appointed counsel for appellant Juan Francisco Tapia Ibarra asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts relating to this appeal. Appellant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from appellant. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to appellant, we affirm the judgment. The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) PROCEDURAL HISTORY The District Attorney of Stanislaus County filed a second amended information on April 2, 2024, charging appellant with the murder of Zobeyda Esquerra (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count I), the attempted murder of Cesar Z. (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count II), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b); count III), evading a peace officer (Veh. Code § 2800.2; count IV), robbery (§ 211; counts V, VI), stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count VII), vandalism with damages over $400 (§ 594, subd. (b)(1); count VIII), and arson of a structure (§ 451, subd. (d); counts IX, X). The second amended information further alleged various circumstances in aggravation (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1), (8) & (b)(1)) as to all counts and special circumstances that appellant was lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) as to count I, acted with premeditation as to counts I and II, personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)) as to count II, personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) as to count III, personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) as to counts V

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                         2.

and VI, and committed the offenses while released on bail for stalking (§ 12022.1) as to
counts I through VI. He pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations.
On April 29, 2024, the jury convicted appellant of all charges, found true all
enhancements (except for acting with premeditation as to count II), and found true some
of the circumstances in aggravation.
The trial court sentenced appellant on July 3, 2024, to a total term of 65 years
4 months in prison to life without the possibility of parole. The court ordered appellant to
pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), $400 in court operations assessments
(§ 1465.8), and $300 in criminal conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373).
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on August 8, 2024.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Twenty-two-year-old Zobeyda Esquerra worked at an automotive store with
appellant and Cesar Z., who was hired in July or August 2021. All three individuals
attended the same high school. Appellant was Esquerra’s supervisor at work but believed
that Esquerra had romantic feelings for him. They interacted outside of work and
socialized between March and fall of 2021. Appellant said that they were in love and
slept together, but she slept with other people and moved on from him. Esquerra’s sister,
C.V., testified that she heard a phone conversation between Esquerra and appellant in
which appellant acknowledged they were just friends.
In July or August 2021, Esquerra became afraid of appellant after someone
commenced a series of events that included banging on and breaking Esquerra’s
apartment windows. As a result of these events, Esquerra and C.V. set up three or four
security cameras around Esquerra’s apartment, two of which faced Esquerra’s car.
Esquerra started seeing Cesar outside of work, and their relationship progressed to
Cesar spending several nights a week with Esquerra at her apartment. Cesar testified that
while staying over with Esquerra, someone woke them up several times by banging on
the windows, but he never saw the responsible individual. On September 19 and 20,

                                         3.

2021, someone broke the windows of Esquerra’s car and threw acetone on it. Officers
responded to Esquerra’s apartment at approximately 1:50 a.m. on September 20, 2021,
and documented the incident and damage to the car, which cost more than $1,000 to
repair. C.V. testified that on September 25 and 26, 2021, appellant followed Esquerra
home and shone a flashlight into Esquerra’s car before returning to his car. During this
time, C.V. pulled her car behind him to block him from leaving and photographed his car.
C.V. testified that someone slashed the tires on Esquerra’s car just as Esquerra started a
relationship with Cesar and described someone scratching the paint on Esquerra’s car.
On October 4, 2021, someone threw a flare into Esquerra’s car and set it on fire.
Esquerra reported her fears and showed text messages that she had received from
appellant to police officers on October 8, 2021.
Esquerra’s mother and father testified that they loaned their car to Esquerra for one
week after Esquerra’s car was set on fire. In the early morning hours of October 9, 2021,
after Esquerra had returned the car to her parents, a neighbor came to the parent’s door,
told them that their car was on fire, and helped to put the fire out. Police responded.
Later that same day, C.V. visited Esquerra at work and greeted Cesar using the
term “brother-in-law.” Appellant reacted with anger and slammed his hand on a desk.
When she left, C.V. parked across the street to see if Esquerra would be followed.
Esquerra left with Cesar, and appellant followed them to Esquerra’s apartment. He
parked, turned off his lights, and drove away for a few blocks. C.V. and a friend followed
appellant, and the friend parked next to appellant. Appellant gave them permission to
search his car and wallet. They found a receipt for binoculars, notes containing the
license plate numbers of the mother’s car and another car driven by Esquerra that
evening, and a paper containing the password for surveillance cameras at the automotive
store with a notation of the retention period for the surveillance camera recordings.
Livingston Police Officer Thomas Griffin responded to the location and
questioned appellant. Griffin recognized appellant’s car in a video of the October 9, 2021

                                         4.

arson from a neighbor’s surveillance camera. Appellant told Griffin that he was
Esquerra’s coworker and had been in a sexual relationship with her that ended three
months previously. Appellant claimed that he had been following Esquerra because
unidentified individuals were forcing him to do so. Griffin arrested appellant for
stalking. Appellant agreed to speak with Griffin further and admitted that he was in love
with Esquerra, had purchased flares from a store previously, was forced to commit the
arson on Esquerra’s car, and had given her $5,000 towards repairing it. Appellant told
Griffin that he wrote down the information about Esquerra found on the paperwork
because the other individuals wanted him to do so. Appellant was released on bail the
following day and was still on bail when he killed Esquerra on March 8, 2022.
C.V. helped Esquerra obtain a restraining order against appellant. On October 11,
2021, Livingston Police Officer Nicolas Kirk served the restraining order on appellant.
Chief of Police John Ramirez testified that he contacted appellant on October 12, 2021, to
ask some follow-up questions. During the conversation, appellant admitted that he threw
flares into both cars to burn them because he was angry with Esquerra. Regarding the
damage to Esquerra’s car on September 20, 2021, appellant initially denied involvement
but eventually admitted that he used acetone to damage her car. Appellant drafted an
apology letter to Esquerra at Ramirez’s request.
Appellant was suspended from work after his October 9, 2021 arrest. Per
company policy, someone charged with a crime has 42 days to clear up the charges or
they are dismissed until they do so. Appellant was later terminated on November 29,
2021.
Esquerra began getting panic attacks because she was frightened of appellant.
Esquerra worked as a delivery driver at the automotive store, and one day, she returned
from a delivery scared and crying because appellant had been following her. She left
work early to report it to police and seek a restraining order.

                                          5.
   Esquerra had another panic attack on October 27, 2021, after appellant followed

her, passed her, and then stepped on his brakes repeatedly while she made a delivery. She
called work in a panic, and the employee who answered the call instructed her to pull
over and then went to her location. When he arrived, the employee observed that
Esquerra was hyperventilating and shaking. He called an ambulance and the police.
Officer Kirk responded to the call and saw Esquerra having a panic attack and being
assisted by paramedics. Chief Ramirez spoke with Esquerra after that, on November 4,
2021. She seemed stressed, worried, and scared and was visibly shaking at times.
Cesar moved in with Esquerra in mid-November 2021. While she and Cesar
initially worked in the same store, Cesar was transferred to a different store per company
policy because of their relationship. Esquerra was fired in December 2021 after she
stopped going to work because she was frightened by what had been happening to her.
She later found a job and borrowed Cesar’s car to drive to work. She regularly took
Cesar to work and, since he worked the closing shift, would park in the same area of the
parking lot while waiting for him to finish work.
One of appellant’s coworkers testified that appellant discussed what he had done
to Esquerra and described his attempts to hide his identity by wearing different clothes
and boots. Appellant also told the coworker that appellant had cut his arm when he
bashed in Esquerra’s window. Appellant explained his conduct by saying, “[Y]ou can
only push a nice guy so far.” Another coworker testified that he exchanged text messages
with appellant in which appellant would ask him questions about Esquerra’s employment
activities. Appellant expressed his belief that it was unfair that he lost his job while
Esquerra still worked there.
U.B., appellant’s coworker, testified that appellant told her that he wanted a
relationship with Esquerra, but Esquerra was not sure she wanted a relationship.
Appellant also tried to check the store cameras concerning a robbery that happened a few
days previously but was really checking up on Esquerra and Cesar. U.B. recorded a

                                          6.

conversation with appellant that occurred shortly after appellant’s arrest. Appellant
admitted that he caused his friends to knock loudly on Esquerra’s door, took the valve
stems from her car tires, scratched her car, and put acetone and battery acid on her car.
He also admitted that he broke the window of her car and threw a flare inside and did the
same to her mother’s car. He stated that he had fun doing these things to Esquerra and
started to feel at peace. He claimed that he ended his relationship with Esquerra officially
when heard people saying that Esquerra and Cesar were sleeping together. U.B. told
appellant that Esquerra thought of him as a friend, but he wanted something more out of
the relationship. Another store employee testified that after appellant was arrested, he
admitted setting Esquerra’s mother’s car on fire and knocking on Esquerra’s apartment
windows.
On February 18, 2022, appellant entered another location of the automotive store
at closing time. While armed with a gun, he ordered the two employees working to open
the safe, grab a trash bag, and give him the money.
On March 8, 2022, appellant arrived near the automotive store where Cesar was
working at approximately 8:37 p.m., according to the surveillance video. Approximately
five minutes later, Esquerra arrived at the automotive store and parked. Cesar and
Abigail G. were closing the automotive store while Esquerra waited for Cesar in the
parking lot. At approximately 8:59 p.m., appellant arrived in the parking lot of the
automotive store, pulled in behind Esquerra’s car, which blocked her from leaving, and
got out of his car. Esquerra called Cesar while he was locking the front door; she was
frantic and yelling. Hearing Esquerra scream his name and gunshots, Cesar ran out the
front door and saw a car parked behind his car and an individual dressed in black pointing
a firearm at his car. Another individual who witnessed the shooting from a nearby store
testified that the shooter parked behind Esquerra’s car, got out and shot at Esquerra as she
got out of the passenger seat. The shooter then walked to Esquerra, shot her five more
times, and fired two shots at the store before leaving. Cesar yelled out when he saw

                                         7.

Esquerra being shot, and that’s when the shooter pointed the firearm at Esquerra and fired
twice. Cesar and Abigail ran to the back door and saw a light-colored sedan leaving
while they ran to Esquerra, who was unresponsive on the ground. Esquerra was
pronounced dead at the hospital. She died of multiple gunshot wounds.
Other witnesses described the shooter’s car to police officers. Officers chased the
car as it ran red lights and drove at unsafe speeds before it collided with a fence running
between two residences. Officers eventually arrested appellant after they found him
hiding in a bush. Appellant said, “I’m sorry,” as he was taken into custody. Officers
seized a recently fired gun from appellant’s car, as well as binoculars, latex gloves, and a
cell phone. Appellant said as he was transported, “If you guys hadn’t caught me, this
would have been a cold case.”
Appellant agreed to speak to detectives after his arrest and initially claimed to
have been in the area of his arrest because he was jogging and walking. Eventually,
appellant admitted that he hurt someone and was a bad guy. He claimed that had gone to
the location to kill Cesar and Esquerra had gotten in the way. Appellant explained that
the murder “was premeditated,” as he had planned to kill Cesar so that the murder would
not be connected to appellant. He described months of planning to make the murder
appear as a robbery, which included the following actions: (1) wearing a thick jacket to
disguise his stature; (2) purchasing and using a car that was not in his name and could not
be traced to him; (3) obtaining a burner phone to avoid creating GPS location information
that could be traced to him; (4) purchasing and using a gun so he would not leave DNA;
(5) bleaching his bullets to not leave DNA; (6) leaving his own car at a different location
and using the car not registered to him; and (7) driving to the automotive store to scope
out driving routes with no cameras.
While waiting for the store to close, appellant saw Cesar’s car pull into the parking
lot and assumed Esquerra was driving because he knew they shared the car. He waited
for five minutes as he thought and debated whether to kill her. He then parked his car

                                         8.

behind her to box her in so that she could not leave. According to appellant, he was
already there and so he might as well end it because “[s]he was placed there for a fucking
reason.” Appellant then fired 10 rounds, including the shots at Cesar and Abigail.
Appellant also described three other plans he had considered that included killing
Esquerra.
The prosecution presented evidence of statements appellant made to individuals
from the jail after the murder. For example, in March 2022, appellant told his mother,
“They got me with everything” and “I did what I did. Fuck it.” That same month, he told
his sister, “[M]ission complete.” Appellant also described that Esquerra “screamed like a
pig … when she looked and got shot.” He told another individual that Esquerra believed
that she could “screw every man on her way” and was “arrogant” and “overconfident”
but learned “if you pinch the chicken, well when she gets mad,” “it will pinch you back.”
Appellant told his father, “Simply, the thing is, dad, if she hadn’t slept with that man,
none of this would have happened.” Appellant described during another March 2022
call, “I fucked her up” and “got everything back.”
Appellant testified at trial consistent with his statement to police and described
that he had a sexual relationship with Esquerra that ended shortly after Cesar commenced
working at the automotive store in August 2021. Appellant confronted Esquerra about
her relationship with Cesar on October 7 or 8, 2021, and appellant considered their
relationship over thereafter. Appellant admitted that he burned Esquerra’s car before the
confrontation because he believed Esquerra was seeing Cesar behind his back.
After appellant visited the automotive store in December 2021, Cesar reported to
police that appellant had visited the store to look for Esquerra, although appellant denied
that he had been looking for her. Appellant wanted to kill Cesar for reporting him to the
police, losing his career, losing Esquerra, losing his reputation, and bullying that he
claimed occurred during high school. He started planning to do so in January 2022, after
purchasing a firearm in December 2021. Appellant testified to his preparations to kill

                                          9.

Cesar and his belief the automotive store would be the perfect place to stage a robbery
that would result in Cesar’s death. Appellant admitted that he had committed a robbery
the month prior to the murder at another automotive store so that police would think the
murder was committed by the same robber. He also described how he killed Esquerra
and shot at Cesar.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to appellant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

                                         10.