Filed 9/21/26 P. v. Gama CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Lassen)
THE PEOPLE, C103364
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. Nos. 2022-
v. CR0089323, 2022-
CR0089324)
JOSEPH MICHAEL ROGELIO GAMA et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appointed counsel for defendants Joseph Michael Rogelio Gama and Alvaro Leal
Saldana, filed opening briefs that set forth the facts of the case and ask this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable errors that would result in
a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The information charged Gama and Saldana with the first degree murder (Pen.
Code, § 187 subd. (a)(1); counts I, III) of Albert Martinez (statutory section references
that follow are to the Penal Code) and possession of a weapon inside prison (§ 4502,
subd. (a); counts II, IV). The information also alleged Gama had suffered one prior strike
(§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and Saldana had suffered two priors strikes (ibid.).
The trial court granted defendants’ request to bifurcate the trial on the prior strikes,
and the substantive counts were tried to a jury beginning in January 2025.
1
The stipulated evidence, video surveillance, and live testimony presented at trial
established that in July 2022, inmate Albert Martinez was on the phone in Dayroom C of
High Desert State Prison with his back to defendants. Defendants were at a table nearby
before they turned in unison and attacked Martinez. Defendants repeatedly stabbed
Martinez for approximately 26 seconds. Correctional Officer Gonzalez Rodriguez first
heard cries for help and then saw the attack, radioed it in, and ordered defendants to “get
down.” Following Rodriguez’s second order to get down, defendants stopped the attack,
moved away, discarded their weapons, and lay on the ground.
Responding officers found Martinez bleeding on the floor and unable to speak.
Defendants were identified as suspects, placed in handcuffs, and observed to have blood
on their clothing. The officers located two cylindrical, pointed, homemade metal
weapons that were each approximately 10 inches long. Correctional Officer David
Jodoin opined the weapons were fashioned from typewriter rods that had been sharpened
on the concrete floor. Martinez died of blood loss caused by multiple stab wounds.
Gama testified in his defense that Martinez had threatened to kill him 10 to 15
seconds before the surveillance video started and that he acted in self-defense. Gama
denied the murder was planned or that he intended to kill Martinez. He also denied
knowing that Saldana was armed, but admitted that Martinez had not been armed. Gama
smuggled his weapon into Section C and placed it under the table a few days before the
attack, holding it there with a magnet. Nonetheless, Gama asserted it was just a
coincidence that it was available for the attack.
Gama also admitted he was convicted of killing another inmate in 2024;
specifically, he and a codefendant had stabbed another, unarmed inmate who was reading
a book 65 times in the back. Gama asserted that attack was also in self-defense.
The jury found defendants guilty on all counts. Thereafter, Gama and Saldana
admitted the prior strike allegation subject to motions to strike at sentencing.
2
Thereafter, the trial court granted Saldana’s unopposed oral motion to strike one of
his prior strikes. The court then sentenced Gama and Saldana to 50 years to life for the
murder counts and 6 years for the weapon possession counts, which the court stayed
pursuant to section 654. Defendants timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel for defendants filed opening briefs that set forth the facts and
procedural history of the case and requested this court review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Defendants were each advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief
within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have
elapsed, and the defendants have not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm the
judgment.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
HULL, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/s/
RENNER, J.
/s/
WISEMAN, J.*
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4
