People v. Gutierrez-Benitez

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGEL GUTIERREZ-BENITEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

B325345

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Seventh Division

July 9, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. NA116883, Laura Laesecke, Judge.

Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

FEUER J.

Angel Gutierrez-Benitez appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and the attempted murder of Gregorio Renteria. Gutierrez-Benitez contends on appeal the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on self-defense and the lesser-included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Evidence at Trial

Shortly before 2:00 a.m. on April 13, 2021, six friends gathered on the Pine Avenue Pier in Long Beach. The group consisted of four men, Renteria, William Velez, Brian Macias, and Andy Mendoza, and two women, Natalie Valdez and Melanie Esquivel. Velez, Macias, Valdez, and Esquivel sat on benches lining one side of the pier (in male/female pairs), and Renteria stood a short distance away further down the pier. Mendoza had rented an electric scooter, which he was riding up and down the pier past his friends. No one in the group had a weapon.

About 10 to 15 minutes after the group arrived at the pier Gutierrez-Benitez walked down the pier in the group's direction. Gutierrez-Benitez, whom the group did not know wore a dark hooded sweatshirt with a red, white, and blue logo on the front, with the hood over his head. He walked past the benches where Velez, Macias, Valdez, and Esquivel were seated without making eye contact with them.^[1] After Gutierrez-Benitez walked to the far end of the benches, he turned around and engaged Mendoza, who then stopped his scooter. According to Renteria's and Velez's trial testimony, Gutierrez-Benitez asked Mendoza, "Do you guys have a problem?" to which Mendoza responded, "No. Do you have a problem?"^[2] Gutierrez-Benitez next asked Mendoza, "Do you bang?," to which Mendoza responded, "Yes, I bang, I'm from Compton T Flats. Where you from homie?" Gutierrez-Benitez answered, "Yes, we do have a problem," and he balled his hands into fists as if he wanted to fight. Mendoza raised his fists in a defensive position.

Renteria testified he was "kind of shadowing" Mendoza at the time, and he was about two to three feet away during the initial exchange between Mendoza and Gutierrez-Benitez. Renteria told Gutierrez-Benitez, "Hey, man. Nobody has a problem," and he stepped between Mendoza and Gutierrez-Benitez to try to deescalate the situation. Gutierrez-Benitez then pulled a knife from his sweatshirt pocket, lunged at Renteria, and stabbed Renteria in the chest with a hammering motion.

Renteria immediately fled from Gutierrez-Benitez (walking backwards toward the entrance to the pier), and his friends quickly followed. Gutierrez-Benitez paused for a moment, then walked in the same direction to leave the pier. Gutierrez-Benitez continued walking behind some restaurants in a retail area on the shoreline. Macias called 911 and followed Gutierrez-Benitez, while the other members of the group tended to Renteria.^[3]

Long Beach Police officers responded to a call for a stabbing incident shortly after 2:00 a.m. Officers detained Gutierrez-Benitez after a brief pursuit and located a folding knife with a three-and-a-half inch, spear-shaped, fine-point blade with dried blood on it in nearby bushes.^[4] Paramedics treated Renteria for a penetrating chest wound and stabilized him for transport to the hospital. Although Renteria survived, the stabbing punctured his lung, requiring multiple surgeries.

Renteria, Macias, Velez, Esquivel, and Valdez testified about the assault, with minor variations in their testimony. Renteria testified Gutierrez-Benitez approached only him and Mendoza, whereas Macias testified Gutierrez-Benitez approached the entire group. Velez testified he thought Gutierrez-Benitez was just a "dude" who "was struggling," or someone who seemed "shady a little bit," and Esquivel testified she thought Gutierrez-Benitez was a homeless person. Valdez testified that Gutierrez-Benitez stared at everyone when he approached them. Mendoza did not testify.^[5]

B. Request for Self-defense Jury Instructions

After the People rested their case, Gutierrez-Benitez's attorney renewed a request that the trial court instruct the jury on self-defense theories.^[6] The attorney argued that Mendoza's statement to Gutierrez-Benitez that he was a member of the Compton T [Tortilla] Flats gang amounted to "fighting words." Also, "the way [the group] spread out, it seemed like they were- from the video-lining up in an attacking position and that warrants self-defense."

The trial court disagreed, emphasizing that Gutierrez-Benitez went up to one or more members of the group and was the first to speak words to the effect of "Where are you from? Do we have a problem?" Moreover, "even if the witnesses are spread out or the victims are spread out, there isn't any substantial evidence . . . or at least some evidence that [Gutierrez-Benitez] was in . . . fear . . . [w]hether reasonable or unreasonable." The court added, "I also don't see any lesser included offenses....It's either attempted murder or it's not. There [are] no voluntary manslaughter issues here." Defense counsel submitted, and the court denied "any request for self-defense instructions."

C. Closing Arguments

During closing arguments, Gutierrez-Benitez's attorney pointed out that the People did not call Mendoza as a witness, and there was no accurate account of the night's events without Mendoza's testimony. The attorney argued it was a "reasonable interpretation of the evidence" in light of Mendoza's larger build and his expressing his gang membership that "at that moment . . . [Gutierrez-Benitez] now thinks that everybody, all four of those guys, are from the Flats[.] Wouldn't that change the situation dramatically? ¶ . . . ¶ And then when you see [Mendoza and Renteria] separate, combined with the thought that, hey, these dudes are from the Flats, [Gutierrez-Benitez] took care of the situation. He disarmed one person. He saw that [Mendoza] wasn't going to do anything and then he walked away. He didn't run. Okay. He walked away." These circumstances negated a finding that Gutierrez-Benitez had the specific intent to kill Renteria.

In his final closing argument, the prosecutor admonished the jury not to consider self-defense: "If anyone goes back there and starts talking about self-defense or something like that, there is none. There was no evidence of it. The judge did not instruct you on it. ¶ . . . ¶ This is not a self-defense case, and you are not to consider it." The prosecutor focused on the fact Gutierrez-Benitez first approached and challenged Mendoza and Renteria, and he argued that Gutierrez-Benitez's "meaningful stab" to Renteria's chest, which caused severe injuries that required numerous surgeries, showed that Gutierrez-Benitez had the specific intent to kill. D. Jury Verdict and Sentencing

The jury found Gutierrez-Benitez guilty of assault with a deadly weapon on Renteria (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1);^[7]count 1) and attempted murder of Renteria (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 3).^[8] As to each count, the jury found true the special allegation Gutierrez-Benitez personally inflicted great bodily injury on Renteria (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).

In a bifurcated court proceeding, Gutierrez-Benitez admitted he suffered a prior conviction for robbery (§ 211) that qualified as a serious or violent felony under the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). Gutierrez-Benitez also admitted the aggravating factors that he suffered a prior conviction for assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and was on probation in two cases at the time of the instant assault.

The trial court sentenced Gutierrez-Benitez to 21 years in state prison on count 3 for attempted murder, comprising the upper term of nine years, doubled under the three strikes law, plus three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. On count 1 for assault with a deadly weapon, the court imposed and stayed under section 654 an eight-year sentence, comprising the middle term of four years, doubled under the three strikes law.

Gutierrez-Benitez timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

A. Governing Law and Standard of Review

With respect to homicide, "[s]elf-defense, when based on a reasonable belief that killing is necessary to avert an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury, is a complete justification, and such a killing is not a crime." (People v. Elmore (2014) 59 Cal.4th 121, 133-134; see § 197, subds. (1) &(2) [homicide is justifiable "[w]hen resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person" and "[w]hen committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony"]; see also CALCRIM No. 505.) "For killing to be in self-defense, the defendant must actually and reasonably believe in the need to defend." (People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1082 (Humphrey); accord, People v. Horn (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 672, 682; People v. Rodarte (2014) 223...