Filed 6/29/26 P. v. Carmarena CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B345681
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 24ARCF00779)
v.
GAMALIEL CARMARENA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, William L. Sadler, Judge. Affirmed.
Naomi L. Svensson, under the appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney, Michael Keller and Patricia Rosman, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Following a jury trial, defendant and appellant Gamaliel
Carmarena1 was found guilty of attempted murder (Pen. Code,
§§ 664, 187; count 1),2 assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd.
(a)(1); count 2), battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 245, subd.
(d); count 3), and resisting an executive officer (§ 69; count 4).
The attempted murder was determined to have been willfully
committed with premeditation and deliberation. (§ 664, subd.
(a).) On counts 1 through 3, allegations of great bodily injury
inflicted on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and the personal use
of a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) were found to be true.
Defendant waived his right to a jury trial on alleged
aggravating circumstances and a prior conviction charged under
the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subd. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–
(d)). All allegations, including the prior conviction, were found
true by the court. Defendant was sentenced to life plus 12 years
and four months in prison.
Defendant contends the judgment of conviction on the
attempted murder charge should be reversed because there was
insufficient evidence that he intended to kill the victim. We
affirm the judgment because a rational trier of fact could have
determined defendant harbored an intent to kill when he
attempted to stab the victim approximately 30 times in his chest
and abdomen.
1 The notice of appeal reflects an incorrect spelling of
defendant’s last name—“Camarena.”
2 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
FACTS3
I. Testimony
On May 10, 2024, around 11:30 p.m., Manuel Cortez
Jimenez was drinking beer and conversing with defendant in
front of a 7-Eleven on Lincoln Boulevard in Venice. Jimenez was
a panhandler living on the streets of Venice and other nearby
cities. He and defendant had been congregating in the vicinity of
the 7-Eleven for about a week; defendant occasionally joined
Jimenez for a drink.
At some point, defendant said “something friendly” to
Jimenez. Jimenez was intoxicated and, in a friendly way, placed
his hand on defendant’s shoulder. Another man in the area
handed Jimenez a cigarette, and the small group gathered to
chat. Jimenez was unarmed.
Unprovoked, defendant surprised Jimenez by attempting to
stab him multiple times. He felt an object cut his left hand.
Jimenez had no way to protect himself. He attempted to “push
away the knife” but was unsuccessful. Jimenez moved away from
defendant to avoid the attack. He realized he was bleeding from
his left hand and noticed a puddle of blood underneath him that
extended toward the street. Jimenez never thought defendant
was a threat to him.
At the time of the stabbing, Tamarah Cohen was in her car
working as a security guard at the apartment complex across the
street from the 7-Eleven. She observed defendant and Jimenez
engaging in a normal conversation. Cohen first thought
defendant began punching Jimenez, but when she saw blood she
3 Generally speaking, the summary of facts is limited to
evidence that is relevant to the issue on appeal.
3
realized defendant had a knife and had stabbed him. Jimenez
exclaimed “stop, stop” while defendant was swinging the knife.
Cohen testified that Jimenez asked defendant, “what he was
doing” and “why is he doing this[?]” Defendant eventually fled.
Cohen dialed 911.
Los Angeles Police Officer Luis Rosas and his partner
responded to the scene. Rosas observed Jimenez sitting in a pool
of blood and holding his hand. Jimenez was transported to St.
John’s Hospital. Rosas issued a “crime alert” which notified other
officers to be on the lookout for defendant and included images of
defendant taken from the 7-Eleven video surveillance camera.
Defendant was treated for a laceration to his hand. The cut
extended from the bottom of his pinky finger to the top half of his
hand. Discoloration was visible on his abdomen.
On May 26, 2024, Rosas observed defendant in the parking
lot of the Venice 7-Eleven. After a struggle with officers,
defendant was arrested.
II. The Surveillance Video
A surveillance video from the 7-Eleven documented the
incident and was played for the jury. It showed Jimenez,
defendant, and two other men congregating in front of the 7-
Eleven. Jimenez lit a cigarette for defendant while defendant
held it in his mouth. Jimenez’s gait was unsteady. At some point
they were joined by a third man in a wheelchair. After two of the
men left the scene, defendant suddenly, and in rapid succession,
began swinging his right arm toward Jimenez’s chest and
abdomen. Jimenez held his hands up in a defensive posture and
attempted to move away from defendant but he appeared to have
difficulty doing so because defendant’s left hand was holding onto
Jimenez’s shirt. Defendant struck Jimenez’s upper torso and
4
abdomen an approximate total of 30 times. When Cohen arrived,
defendant fled the scene holding a knife in his right hand.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
“In reviewing a criminal conviction challenged as lacking
evidentiary support, ‘“the court must review the whole record in
the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine
whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence
which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a
reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Streeter
(2012) 54 Cal.4th 205, 241.) “‘An appellate court must accept
logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the
evidence even if the court would have concluded otherwise.’
[Citation.]” (Id., at p. 241.)
II. Analysis
“Every attempted murder conviction requires ‘“the specific
intent to kill and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act
toward accomplishing the intended killing.”’ [Citation.]” (People
v. Mumin (2023) 15 Cal.5th 176, 217.) A finding of intent to kill
may be “based on circumstantial evidence of the crime—the
‘“method employed”’ or the ‘“mode of attack.’” [Citation.] Such
inference is not novel or unusual: Because ‘[d]irect evidence of
intent to kill is rare,’ intent to kill ‘ordinarily . . . must be inferred
from the statements and actions of the defendant and the
circumstances surrounding the crime.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to support
a finding of intent to kill because (1) the attempts to stab
Jimenez were not “well aimed” and “penetrating,” (2) defendant
5
did not use a longer knife or “employ a thrusting motion that
made its way through Jimenez’s clothing,” and (3) defendant had
no “animus toward Jimenez.” Defendant’s approach invites us to
reweigh the evidence and ignore the requirement that we view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment.
The video, coupled with the testimony of Jimenez and
Cohen, established defendant and Jimenez engaged in friendly
chatter before defendant suddenly launched approximately 30
swings with a knife toward Jimenez’s chest and abdomen. A
rational trier of fact could conclude that by thrusting a knife that
many times, in an effort to stab an unsuspecting, intoxicated and
defenseless victim in vital areas of his body, defendant
manifested an intention to kill. (See People v. Bolden (2002) 29
Cal.4th 515, 561 [plunging knife into a vital area of the body of
unsuspecting and defenseless victim evinces intent to kill]; People
v. Moore (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1114 [stabbing in
vulnerable area of body is consistent with an intent to kill].)
The fact that Jimenez was able to partially fend off the
attack and limit his injuries to abdominal bruising and a
laceration to his hand does not vitiate defendant’s intended
result. “[T]he degree of the resulting injury is not dispositive of
defendant’s intent. Indeed, a defendant may properly be
convicted of attempted murder when no injury results.” (People
v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 702, see also People v. Lashley
(1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 938, 945 [that “the victim may have escaped
death” due to “poor marksmanship” does not abrogate intent to
kill].) Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict.
6
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
KUMAR, J.*
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
KIM (D.), J.
Retired Judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.
7