Filed 9/17/26 P. v. Gomez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F089701
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. VCF338632A)
v.
CHRISTOPHER RENE GOMEZ,
OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda M.
Reed, Judge.
Randy Kravis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Dina Petrushenko and
Matthew A. Kearney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Christopher Rene Gomez pleaded no contest to premeditated attempted
murder and admitted the truth of a gang enhancement on April 28, 2017. He filed a
petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6,1 on February 9, 2024,
which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Gomez contends there was
insufficient evidence he intended to kill the victim. We affirm the trial court’s denial of
Gomez’s petition for resentencing.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
1. Original Charges and Plea
On December 14, 2016, the Tulare County District Attorney filed an information
charging Gomez and codefendants, Jonathan Ramos-Morales (Ramos) and Roberto
Saldana, Jr. (Saldana), with premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664;
count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). As to both
counts, the information further alleged each defendant inflicted great bodily injury,
committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and personally used a
weapon in the commission of the offense.
On April 28, 2017, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Gomez stipulated to
the factual basis for the plea, pleaded nolo contendere to premeditated attempted murder,
and admitted the gang enhancement allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C), (b)(5)). In
exchange, count 2 and the remaining enhancement allegations would be dismissed, and
Gomez would receive a sentence of 15 years to life. On June 30, 2017, the trial court
imposed the agreed-upon sentence and the remaining count and enhancement allegations
were dismissed.
2. Section 1172.6 Resentencing Petition and Appeal
On February 9, 2024, Gomez filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. In the following months, the court appointed counsel to represent
Gomez, found that he made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, and issued an
order to show cause. At the evidentiary hearing on April 15, 2025, the trial court took
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2.
evidence, heard argument from the parties, found beyond a reasonable doubt that Gomez
had the specific intent to kill the victim, and concluded Gomez was guilty of attempted
murder under current law. On that basis, it denied Gomez’s petition.
On April 22, 2025, Gomez filed a timely notice of appeal.
FACTUAL SUMMARY2
In 2016, Gomez was in custody at the Bob Wiley Detention Facility in Tulare
County, stemming from an unrelated incident. Sometime in July 2016, Gomez and his
cellmate and fellow Norteño gang member, C.M., were in their cell. They had an
argument in which Gomez spoke disparagingly about C.M.’s toddler son. C.M. then
“ended up beating [Gomez] up” inside their cell—despite gang rules which prohibited
violence against other members. C.M. reported to other gang members that he had
assaulted Gomez.
On July 27, 2016, Saldana, a fellow Norteño gang member, gave Gomez a
“peda[z]o” commonly known as a “shank,” instructed him that “it was going to go
down,” and told him when C.M. came out of the shower, to “take care of business.”
Shortly thereafter, Gomez, armed with a shank, quickly approached C.M. and sliced his
face. Ramos, a fellow gang member, was armed with a “poker” and stabbed C.M. several
times before running away to hide the weapon. Saldana also joined in on the attack.
Gomez slammed C.M.’s head on the concrete and he and Saldana continued beating,
kicking, and possibly stabbing C.M. for several minutes after Ramos left, until another
inmate ordered the men to stop the attack. C.M. sustained puncture wounds above his
eyes, on his forehead, the back of his head, his arm, chest, hip and thigh. He also had a
collapsed lung and was in the hospital for one to two weeks due to his injuries. (Aug.CT
16 RT 41.)
2 The factual summary is based upon the evidence the trial court considered at the
evidentiary hearing on Gomez’s petition, including the preliminary hearing transcript, the
video of the attack, and live witness testimony.
3.
Shortly thereafter, Gomez was interviewed by former Tulare County Sheriff
Abraham Ramirez and admitted that he “rushed” C.M. and sliced him in the face. Gomez
stated the attack on C.M. was a “removal.” At the evidentiary hearing, Ramirez
explained a “removal” is an assault by the gang against a member who disobeys their
rules and becomes “no good.” Ramirez further explained that the purpose of the removal
is to get the “no good” member out of the gang housing unit known as the “Norteño pod.”
Upon further questioning, Ramirez agreed death can happen in these assaults. After the
attack, C.M. was removed from the pod.
DISCUSSION
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Gomez argues there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that he acted with the specific intent to kill. The People disagree, as do we.
A. Additional Background
At the evidentiary hearing the trial court stated it had read and considered the
preliminary hearing transcript and would consider all admissible evidence from that
transcript, along with any live testimony presented. The prosecution then presented live
testimony from C.M., Ramirez, and former Tulare County Sheriff Detective Daniel
McBride, who described the surveillance video, which was also admitted into evidence as
People’s Exhibit 6. Gomez did not call witnesses or present evidence.
In denying Gomez’s petition, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that
he specifically intended to kill C.M., because the attack was not spontaneous, as
evidenced by him waiting for C.M. to exit the shower, then immediately attacking him,
and continuing the attack even after C.M. became unconscious. The trial court also
found that C.M. was “stabbed, kicked, punched,” and his head was “slammed on the
concrete,” and that Gomez “admitted to using a shank to slice the victim.” Gomez was
found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as an actual perpetrator of attempted murder and
his petition was denied.
4.
B. Standard of Review
“[A] trial court’s decision denying a petition under section 1172.6 following an
evidentiary hearing is predominantly a question of fact” that is reviewed for “substantial
evidence.” (See People v. Underwood (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 303, 314.) “Under this
standard, we review the record ‘ “ ‘in the light most favorable to the [order or] 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.’ ” ’ ” (See People v. Reyes (2023)
14 Cal.5th 981, 988.) “ ‘If such substantial evidence be found, it is of no consequence
that the trial court believing other evidence, or drawing other reasonable inferences,
might have reached a contrary conclusion.’ ” (People v. Ortiz (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th
1354, 1363, italics omitted.)
Under the substantial evidence standard, “we must begin with the presumption that
the evidence … was sufficient, and the defendant bears the burden of convincing us
otherwise. To meet that burden, it is not enough for the defendant to simply contend,
‘without a statement or analysis of the evidence, … that the evidence is insufficient .…’
[Citation.] Rather, he must affirmatively demonstrate that the evidence is insufficient.”
(People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573, italics omitted.)
C. Analysis
Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate
Bill No. 1437) amended sections 188 and 189 to “eliminate[ ] natural and probable
consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting[ ] and limit[ ] the
scope of the felony-murder rule.” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.) The bill
also added section 1172.6 to enable defendants who could no longer be convicted of
murder under the amended laws to petition for retroactive relief. (Lewis, at p. 959.)
Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 775) subsequently expanded
relief to those convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable
5.
consequences doctrine. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(1); People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216, 223, fn. 3.) Where, like here, the defendant has made a prima facie showing for
relief, and the trial court issues an order to show cause, the prosecution bears the burden
of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner remains guilty of attempted
murder under California law as amended by Senate Bill Nos. 1437 and 775. (§ 1172.6,
subd. (d)(3).) The parties may offer evidence from a prior trial, or new or additional
evidence at the hearing. (Ibid.)
“ ‘Attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill,’ ” i.e., “express malice,”
“ ‘and the commission of a direct but ineffectual act toward accomplishing the intended
killing.’ ” (People v. Stone (2009) 46 Cal.4th 131, 136, 139.)
Gomez asks us to vacate the denial of his petition for resentencing. While Gomez
concedes the brutality of his attack on C.M., he argues he only intended to injure or hurt,
not kill C.M. Gomez contends the purpose of C.M.’s “removal” was assault, and the fact
that he ceased the attack on C.M. while he was still alive supports that he did not have
intent to kill.
When Gomez entered the plea, his counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea
based on the police reports and the preliminary hearing transcript. The surveillance video
depicted Gomez as the first person who attacked C.M. Furthermore, testimony from the
evidentiary hearing revealed Gomez obtained a weapon, waited for C.M. to exit the
shower, commenced attacking C.M. with the weapon, and continued attacking him for
several minutes, despite C.M. lying motionless on the ground.
Gomez’s admission to Ramirez that, while armed with a shank, he laid in wait for
C.M. to exit the shower, “rushed” C.M., and “sliced” him in the face, when combined
with the video of the brutal attack—are sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that
Gomez had specific intent to kill and was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder.
The preliminary hearing transcript and the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing
constitute substantial evidence that Gomez is guilty of attempted murder under current
6.
law. We thus reject Gomez’s challenge to the trial court’s order denying his petition for
resentencing.
DISPOSITION
The April 15, 2025, order denying Gomez’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
SNAUFFER, J.
WE CONCUR:
FRANSON, Acting P. J.
HARRELL, J.
7.