Filed 8/25/26 P. v. Cortez CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H053740
(Monterey County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR005387)
v.
ROBERTO CARLOS CORTEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Roberto Carlos Cortez appeals from a judgment entered
after conviction for first degree murder by jury trial. Cortez, an inmate at
Salinas Valley State Prison, and fellow prison inmate Juan Jose Bueno,
stabbed and killed a third prison inmate, Steven Lovely. Appointed counsel
for Cortez filed a brief asking this court to review the record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Cortez was advised of the right to file a supplemental
brief but has not responded. Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to Cortez, we affirm the judgment, although we
order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to correctly state
Cortez’s first degree murder conviction.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Facts
At Cortez’s trial, the evidence established the following facts:
Ricardo Corona was a correctional officer at Salinas Valley State
Prison. He was working on March 21, 2023, about 6:58 p.m., in an area of the
prison where inmates do indoor recreational activities. Corona was able to
observe the area from a control booth. Inmates at the prison are not allowed
to possess weapons, even for self-defense. Despite this rule, some inmates do
possess weapons. Cortez was not searched on the day of the incident.
Corona witnessed Lovely being stabbed. Corona heard “rapid sneaker
movement,” turned around, and saw Bueno and Cortez striking Lovely in an
“up-and-down motion.” Corona retrieved his “launcher”1 and a “mini 14 rifle”
and called for assistance.
Corona yelled at Bueno and Cortez to “get down,” but they did not
comply. He fired his launcher and shot a “direct sponge round” at Bueno.
Although the round initially appeared to be effective, Bueno once again
returned to Lovely and kept hitting him. Corona again yelled at Bueno and
Cortez to “get down,” and they complied. From his location, Corona could not
see whether Bueno or Cortez had a weapon, but Corona did see blood on
Lovely. During his testimony, Corona authenticated a copy of video
surveillance footage of the incident, and the video was played for the jury.
After Bueno and Cortez had gotten down on the ground, Corona opened
a door to let other staff in. Other officers began tending to Lovely, and they
1 Corona testified that a “launcher” is “a less-lethal use-of-force option
[that] basically shoots out . . . wood baton rounds at a high speed” and is
designed to “stop the threat without causing great bodily injury.”
2
secured Bueno and Cortez. Medical staff arrived to treat Lovely less than
five minutes after the incident ended.
Julian Narvaez was a correctional officer at Salinas Valley State
Prison. On the date of the incident, he was assigned to the investigative
services unit. He heard an alarm in the prison going off about 6:58 p.m. on
March 21, 2023. His role in the investigation was to take photographs and
gather evidence. He took photographs of weapons found on the floor
immediately after the attack on Lovely. One weapon was a piece of folded
metal, sharpened to a point. The second weapon was a metal rod sharpened
to a point. Both weapons had blood on them. Narvaez described a
photograph that he took of Lovely lying in a pool of blood, with blood all over
the floor. Cortez also had blood on his face, shorts, socks, and shoes. Bueno
also had blood on him.
Abraham Franco was a correctional officer who was involved in the
investigation of the incident. He collected the weapons used in the incident
and took photographs of them, which were shown to the jury.
Ibrahim Barrios was a correctional officer at Salinas Valley State
Prison. He testified that, after the incident, Lovely was transported to
Natividad Medical Center. Lovely died at the hospital, and the coroner
assumed custody of Lovely’s body.
Venus Azar was a doctor and a forensic pathologist with the Monterey
County Coroner’s Office. Dr. Azar conducted a postmortem examination of
Lovely on March 31, 2023. Lovely had a stab wound to his right internal
carotid artery, which caused a blood clot, which caused a stroke in his brain.
The hospital operated three times on Lovely. After the last surgery, Lovely
“continued to decline” and became brain dead on March 26, 2023. Azar’s
opinion was that Lovely died because of strokes and swelling of the brain, due
3
to an injury to his carotid artery caused by a stab wound of the neck. Her
opinion was that the manner of Lovely’s death was homicide.
Cortez testified in his own defense. He had been in prison since he was
16 years old and, at the time of the incident, was an inmate at Salinas Valley
State Prison. Prisoners made rules among themselves to “set boundaries.”
Prisoners, including Cortez, organized themselves into groups and had to
follow the group’s rules and orders. Lovely and Bueno were in Cortez’s group.
Lovely was getting disciplined because “he had messed up somewhere else.”
Cortez was told by someone else to discipline Lovely “a matter of seconds”
before the incident. Cortez would not identify the person who gave him the
order to attack Lovely, because, if he did, Cortez would be killed.
It was common for prisoners to carry knives. Cortez knew it was
dangerous to stab someone because “you’re putting a hole in somebody’s
body.” Cortez made the weapon he used in the attack on Lovely from a “hot
pot,” and Cortez had had it “for a while.”
Cortez stabbed Lovely in the neck. Cortez did not intend to kill him.
Cortez was hoping to put “1, 2, 3 little holes [in Lovely], hopefully [Lovely]
doesn’t fight that much and hopefully they stop it on time.” Cortez’s
“intentions were never for [Lovely] to be as hurt as he got.” Cortez had
“nothing against [Lovely]. [His] intentions were never for [Lovely] to end up
like that.” Cortez testified “it got out of hand. It wasn’t supposed to be that
bad.” The stabbing “was a checking. [Cortez] was supposed to stab [Lovely] a
few times, hopefully it ends fast, and that was it.”
After he stabbed Lovely, Cortez did not alert the guards. Lovely fought
back, and Cortez did not stop the attack until Lovely stopped. Once Cortez
saw Lovely was injured, Cortez told Lovely to “stay strong.”
4
Cortez knew that, after getting the order to attack Lovely, Cortez could
have requested to go into protective custody. However, moving into
protective custody “comes with consequences. [Cortez] could get raped over
there. They have sexual assaults over there. It’s worse and more dangerous
over there.”
Benjamin Duran was a correctional officer at Salinas Valley State
Prison. He testified that “[a] checking is . . . a method utilized in the prison
setting for when an individual has committed a violation of set rules and
regulations that are set on that facility for that specific group.” Typically, it
is a “minor assault” and does not usually involve a weapon. In his experience
“a weapon is utilized to create bodily injury, and it’s not used for checking, it’s
more just used for an attempted murder.”
B. Procedural Background
The district attorney charged Cortez by second amended information
with the willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of Steven Lovely (Pen.
Code,2 § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and custodial possession of a weapon (§ 4502,
subd. (a); count 3). As to count 1, the information alleged that Cortez had
four prior strike convictions (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). The information also
charged codefendant Bueno in counts 1 and 3, along with an additional
charge in count 2 of assault by a life prisoner (§ 4500), and an additional
allegation attached to count 1 (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2) [murder with a prior
murder conviction]).
Prior to trial,3 the trial court heard motions in limine. It granted the
People’s motion to admit evidence under section 969, subdivision (b) in
support of the prior strike conviction allegations. It also granted the People’s
2 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3 Cortez and Bueno were tried together.
5
motions to impeach Cortez with the strike priors alleged in the information
should Cortez testify at trial. The court granted Cortez’s motion that he not
be shackled or wearing inmate clothing during trial. The court granted
Cortez’s motion to bifurcate the trial on the prior strike conviction
allegations. The court denied Cortez’s motion to exclude surveillance video
taken from the prison on the ground in that it did not show any medical
treatment received by the victim. The court found the video relevant, and
that any evidence of what the video did not show could be proven by the
defense through other evidence.
Later that day, Cortez waived his right to jury trial on the prior strike
conviction allegations. Cortez admitted to having the following prior strike
convictions: from 1999, a violation of section 212.5, subdivision (c) (with
enhancements under sections 12022.5 and 12022.53) and two convictions of
section 245, subdivision (a)(2); and from 2016, a violation of section 422 (with
an enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a)).
Cortez’s jury trial took place from January 27 through 30, 2025.4 On
January 29, Cortez brought a Marsden5 motion requesting new appointed
counsel. The trial court cleared the courtroom and conducted a hearing on
the request. The court denied the Marsden motion and sealed the record of
the hearing.
After the hearing, the People stated on the record that the prison had
not preserved any of the body camera footage from the responding officers,
except for a “2-second snippet” of when the officer fired from the launcher.
That recording had been produced in discovery. The People had disclosed to
4 Unless otherwise specified, all dates were in 2025.
5 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.
6
the defense all of the existing digital evidence from the prison related to the
incident.
Following denial of his Marsden motion, Cortez requested to represent
himself. Cortez believed he would “fight for [himself] better than the way
they [were] fighting for [him] right now.” When asked by the trial court,
Cortez did not provide any specifics about how his self-representation would
be better than his representation by trial counsel. Referencing the hearing
on the Marsden motion, the court found that Cortez’s trial counsel had been
representing him professionally and zealously and that she had been doing
“an excellent job.” The court denied Cortez’s motion to represent himself as
untimely, since the People had almost finished presenting their evidence and
Cortez would need a trial continuance if he were to represent himself.
After the People rested, Cortez and his codefendant brought a motion
for entry of judgment of acquittal pursuant to section 1118.1, which the trial
court denied. Cortez testified in his own defense but did not present any
other evidence. Cortez’s codefendant Bueno did not testify. The People called
one witness in rebuttal.
After the close of evidence, the trial court instructed the jury. Among
other instructions, the court informed the jury that Cortez and Bueno “are
both charged in [c]ount 1 with murder in the first degree with premeditation
and deliberation, in violation of Penal Code [s]ection 187, subsection (a).” On
count 1, the court instructed the jury on first and second degree murder. The
jury instruction for first degree murder stated in part, “The defendant is
guilty of first-degree murder if the People have proved that he acted willfully,
deliberately, and with premeditation.”
The instruction for first or second degree murder with malice
aforethought stated in part, “An act causes death if the death is the direct,
7
natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have
happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a
reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual
intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable,
consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence. [¶] There may
be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if it is a
substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a
trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only factor that
causes the death.”
Following instructions, both sides presented closing argument. Cortez’s
defense at trial was that he was not guilty of first or second degree murder,
and he only “participated in an assault.” Cortez further argued that the
treatment of Lovely in the hospital was a substantial factor in causing
Lovely’s death because Lovely lived four days after the first surgery.
Following final instructions, the jury retired for deliberations. The jury
returned a verdict later that afternoon. The jury found Cortez guilty of count
1 and that he committed the murder willfully with deliberation and
premeditation. In addition, the jury found Cortez guilty of count 3.
The trial court sentenced Cortez on August 6. Cortez elected not to file
a Romero motion. Cortez’s trial counsel explained that “Cortez has three
trailing life cases that have not been litigated yet. . . . The prosecution has
agreed to dismiss those cases in light of [counsel’s] strategic decision not to
file a Romero.” Cortez stated on the record that he agreed with the decision
not to file a Romero motion.
On count 1, murder in the first degree, the trial court imposed on
Cortez a term of 25 years to life, tripled pursuant to section 1170.12,
subdivision (c)(2)(A), to 75 years to life. On count 3, the court imposed the
8
middle term of three years, doubled pursuant to strike law, to six years,
stayed pursuant to section 654. The court ordered that the sentence be
served consecutively to any other sentence Cortez was already serving. The
court awarded zero days of custody credits.
The trial court ordered a restitution fund fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.4,
subd. (b)) and imposed and suspended a $10,000 parole revocation restitution
fund fine (§ 1202.45). The court ordered a $80 court operations assessment
(§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $60 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code,
§ 70373). The People dismissed three pending cases against Cortez.
Cortez timely appealed his judgment of conviction.
II. DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and
People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.
The abstract of judgment for Cortez’s indeterminate sentence (form
CR–292; dated August 8, 2025) incorrectly states in section No. 1 that Cortez
was convicted on count 1 of “murder second degree.” (Capitalization omitted.)
That is incorrect. The jury returned a verdict finding Cortez guilty of first
degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189). To conform the abstract to the
conviction, we direct the trial court to prepare a new abstract of judgment
that indicates Cortez’s conviction of first degree murder.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Cortez.
We therefore affirm the judgment.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a new
abstract of judgment for the indeterminate sentence that indicates Cortez
9
was convicted on count 1 of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a),
189).
The trial court clerk is directed to forward a copy of the corrected
abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
10
______________________________________
Danner, J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
Greenwood, P. J.
____________________________________
Adams, J.
H053740
People v. Cortez