Filed 9/28/26 P. v. Thomas CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, B342967
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA496656)
v.
TERANCE TRACY THOMAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Michael Garcia, Judge. Affirmed with
directions.
Julia Caleca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Terance Tracy Thomas challenges his judgment
of conviction for first degree murder, arguing the admission
of gang evidence denied him a fair trial. He further argues he
received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed
to object to that evidence. Thomas has forfeited his evidentiary
argument and has not established ineffective assistance.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. In addition, we instruct the
trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.
BACKGROUND
A jury convicted Thomas of the first degree murder of
Dmorreau Oglesby (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and found true
the personal use of a firearm allegation. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The
prosecution’s evidence at trial consisted primarily of surveillance
video footage and the testimony of a gang expert. The defense
presented no affirmative evidence.
A. Surveillance Footage
Numerous surveillance cameras located inside and outside
the 7-Eleven store where Oglesby was shot recorded the events
before, during, and after the shooting. The prosecution played
these video recordings for the jury. They depict the following:
On June 17, 2021, Oglesby parks his white Nissan in the
7-Eleven parking lot. He is wearing a New York Yankees baseball
cap. At 12:01 p.m., a blue Chevrolet Tahoe enters the parking
lot. Two men exit. One is wearing a black T-shirt with the word
“security” on the front and has a long, thick dreadlock hairstyle.
Numerous distinctive tattoos on his face, neck, and right arm are
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
visible. The second man is wearing a white tank top and black
pants.
At trial, multiple law enforcement witnesses who had
interacted with Thomas before the shooting identified him as the
man wearing the security shirt, based in part on his distinctive
tattoos and hairstyle. Thomas also conceded during closing
arguments that he is the man wearing the security shirt in this
footage. Witnesses identified the man in the tank top as Genuine
Bedford, who lived with Thomas.
The video footage goes on to depict Bedford approaching
the front of Oglesby’s Nissan, in which Oglesby is still sitting, and
Thomas pointing at it. A silver Mercedes enters the parking lot,
and a man witnesses later identified as Christian Fernandez exits.
Thomas walks to the rear of the Tahoe; Bedford and Fernandez
join him. Thomas again points in the direction of Oglesby’s Nissan.
Thomas and Bedford enter the Tahoe, and Fernandez returns to
his Mercedes.
At 12:05 p.m., Thomas, Bedford, and Fernandez arrive at
Thomas and Bedford’s residence, located about 100 to 150 yards
from the 7-Eleven. Thomas and Bedford enter the house while
Fernandez remains outside.
At 12:12 p.m., two men emerge from the house, one wearing
a red shirt under a black hoodie, the other wearing a black hoodie.
Multiple law enforcement witnesses identified the man in the red
shirt and hoodie as Thomas and the man in the black hoodie as
Bedford. The two men “huddle[ ] up” with Fernandez outside the
house. Fernandez is wearing a ski mask on the top of his head.
Oglesby exits his car around 12:20 p.m. and enters
the 7-Eleven. Around this same time, Thomas, Bedford, and
Fernandez are walking through an alleyway from the residence to
3
the 7-Eleven, and arrive at the 7-Eleven parking lot around
12:24 p.m. Thomas approaches the rear of Oglesby’s Nissan while
Bedford approaches the front. Thomas then walks to the front door
of the 7-Eleven, where Oglesby is exiting, and fires the first shot.
Oglesby runs back into the store; Thomas follows him. Thomas
racks the slide on the handgun twice, points it at Oglesby, and fires
a second shot. Thomas is wearing gloves.
At 12:25 p.m., Thomas exits the 7-Eleven, “running towards”
the street, where he gets into the front passenger seat of the blue
Tahoe, and it drives away. Fernandez gets into the driver’s seat of
the silver Mercedes and drives away.
B. Gang Evidence
1. Pretrial Discussion of Gang Evidence
Prior to trial, the People moved in limine for permission
to offer gang evidence. At the hearing on the motion, the district
attorney explained he wanted to offer “very limited gang evidence
to explain why this shooting took place . . . I think maybe 10,
12 minutes, just establishing the territory, establishing who
[is] who, and establishing the motive for the shooting and why
an individual would shoot a complete stranger based on a baseball
cap.”
Defense counsel responded he was “familiar with [the district
attorney’s] argument, we’ve discussed it, and I will submit on the
court’s ruling.” The court granted the motion to offer gang evidence
in the “very limited fashion” the district attorney had described.
Defense counsel then reiterated that, “as long as it is in that limited
fashion, then we’ll submit just that way.”
4
2. Gang-Related Testimony
At trial, the People offered the gang expert testimony of
Los Angeles Police Department Officer Albert Vazquez. Vazquez
testified as follows:
Thomas is a 59 Hoover gang member. Tattoos on Thomas’s
body, including on his face, neck, and left arm, signal this gang
affiliation.
The 7-Eleven where the shooting occurred is within Hoover
gang territory, and the Hoovers care about protecting their
territory. Entering that territory while wearing a hat associated
with a rival gang is a “huge sign” of disrespect, which the Hoovers
view as warranting violent retaliation. As a means of cultivating
respect, fear, and intimidation, Hoover gang members have
committed acts of violence against people wearing clothing they
believe signals a rival gang affiliation. For example, three years
before Thomas’s trial, five Duce Hoover gang members entered
rival Crip gang territory and killed a person because they believed
he was a rival gang member based solely on his wearing a blue
bandana. Two weeks before trial, Five Duce Hoover gang members
again entered rival gang territory and shot at individuals because
of what the individuals were wearing. A Hoover killing someone
who appears to be a rival gang member enhances the Hoover’s
reputation, even if the person wearing the rival gang clothing is not
actually a gang member.
The Crips gang is an enemy of the Hoovers gang. Many
members of the Rolling Neighborhood Crips gang wear hats or
clothing bearing the New York Yankees logo, and Yankees hats are
associated with the Crips.
In addition to Vazquez’s expert testimony, the investigating
detective testified that he believed Oglesby was shot because
5
Oglesby was wearing a Yankees hat. The detective believed this
because a Yankees hat is the symbol for a rival of the Hoovers gang
and the shooting took place in Hoover territory.
The detective further testified that Oglesby was not a gang
member and did not know Thomas. During a search of Oglesby’s
vehicle after the shooting, police found hats bearing the logos
of other sports teams in the backseat, including two Pittsburgh
Pirates hats, a Philadelphia Phillies hat, a Toronto Blue Jays hat,
and two Boston Red Sox hats.
3. Limiting Instruction
The court instructed the jury that gang evidence could be
considered only for the limited purpose of deciding whether Thomas
“had a motive to commit the crime charged.” The instruction
further stated, “You may not consider this evidence for any
other purpose. You may not conclude from this evidence that the
defendant is a person of bad character or that he has a disposition
to commit crime.”
DISCUSSION
Thomas timely appealed his judgment of conviction. As
we explain below, Thomas has not identified reversible error.
We agree with both parties, however, that a clerical error in the
abstract of judgment must be corrected.
A. Failure To Object Forfeited Thomas’s Gang
Evidence Argument and Does Not Constitute
Ineffective Assistance
Thomas argues that there was “insufficient evidence
that the shooting involved a gang-related motive,” and the
“admission of gang evidence to prove motive was [therefore]
error.” According to Thomas, admission of this irrelevant
6
evidence could only support impermissible inferences, violated
his Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial, and warrants
reversal. But by failing to object—either to the motion in limine
ruling or as the evidence was presented during trial2—Thomas
forfeited his gang evidence argument. (See People v. Partida
(2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 434; see People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th
731, 778–779.)
Thomas urges us to nevertheless consider the argument
because it implicates an important issue of constitutional law
(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7) and/or presents
a “clear and obvious” error that affects the overall fairness of the
proceeding. (People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 963.) We
disagree with these characterizations and decline to address the
forfeited issue.
Thomas further argues we should consider his forfeited
argument, because his counsel’s failure to object constitutes
ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective
assistance, Thomas must show (1) his attorney’s representation
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) a
reasonable probability that the result would have been different,
absent this deficiency. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S.
668, 687–696 (Strickland); People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262,
288.)
2 If the prosecution had offered more than the limited
gang evidence defense counsel agreed to at the motion in limine
hearing, Thomas may have preserved an argument for appeal
by objecting on that basis during trial. He did not so object,
however. Nor does our review of the record suggest that the
gang evidence at trial exceeded that the court’s pretrial ruling
authorized.
7
Were we to reach the first prong of the Strickland analysis,
it is highly likely we would conclude the gang evidence was
admissible, and that counsel thus acted reasonably in not
objecting thereto. We do not reach the issue, however, given the
guidance of our Supreme Court that, “[i]f it is easier to dispose
of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient
prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.” (Strickland, supra,
466 U.S. at p. 697.) Such is the case here.
The reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome
necessary to establish prejudice is “ ‘a probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” (People v. Fairbank
(1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241.) At trial, the prosecution played a
video depicting a man multiple witnesses identified as Thomas
shooting the victim. Thomas cites no evidence impeaching these
witnesses or otherwise contradicting the video account of events.
Thomas instead argues it is reasonably probable the jury would
not have believed this uncontradicted, unimpeached testimony
and video footage if the jury had not known Thomas is a Hoover
gang member and that Hoover gang members are willing to kill
based solely on rival gang clothing. We disagree. The evidence
that Thomas was the shooter—whatever his motive—was strong.
Moreover, we “presume the jury understood and followed the
instruction” to not consider the gang evidence for any purpose
other than motive. (People v. Homick (2012) 55 Cal.4th 816,
873; accord, People v. Hall (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1077, 1098
[“outside of the confrontation clause context, we continue to
assume that the jury follows its instructions”].) Accordingly,
regardless of whether a reasonably competent attorney would
have objected to the gang evidence—an issue we are not
8
deciding—any such failure to object was not prejudicial and
cannot support Thomas’s ineffective assistance claim.
B. A Clerical Error in the Abstract of Judgment
Must Be Corrected
The People note that the first page of the abstract of
judgment incorrectly lists “2001” as the year Thomas committed
the murder underlying the judgment. In fact, the shooting
occurred in 2021. Both parties ask that we amend the abstract
of judgment to correct this. We agree that this date is a clerical
error and instruct the court to correct it. (See People v. Mitchell
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185, 188 [when there is a clerical error in
the abstract of judgment, “the appellate court itself should order
the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment”].)
9
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is instructed to
amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that Thomas committed
the murder in 2021, rather than 2001, and forward a certified copy
of the amended abstract of judgment to the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
We concur:
WEINGART, J.
M. KIM, J.
10