P. v. Cortez

Filed 11/6/17 P. v. Cortez CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
NORMA CORTEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
B280911
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA345971)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Dennis Landin, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert E. Boyce, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Norma Cortez was convicted of premeditated murder and
premeditated attempted murder. Following remand of this case

-- 1 of 4 --

2
from the California Supreme Court and our court, appellant
appeals the denial of a new trial motion. Pursuant to People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), appellant’s counsel filed an
opening brief requesting this court review the record and
determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. We have
reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The facts are set out in the Supreme Court’s opinion in this
case. (People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 105-110 (Cortez).)
Briefly, while riding in a car driven by appellant, appellant’s
codefendant Rodrigo Alonso Bernal shot at two teenagers, killing
one. Although the victims were not gang members, Bernal was a
gang member and the shooting took place in rival gang territory.
Before the shooting, the surviving victim heard a female voice
say, “ ‘ “Where you guys from?” ’ ” and “ ‘ “Let them have it.” ’ ” A
bystander saw the car screech to a halt and Bernal get out and
fire, then heard Bernal say, “ ‘ “Let’s go, let’s go,” ’ ” as he got
back in the car. The car drove away. (Id. at pp. 105-107.)
Appellant gave conflicting accounts of the incident to police.
At trial, she testified she was not a gang member and Bernal was
her neighbor. She did not think Bernal was a gang member,
although he talked about the gang, lived in gang territory, and
carried a gun at all times. The day of the shooting she gave him
a ride to pick up some money he had lent someone. As they
neared the intersection where the shooting occurred, she saw two
young men yelling and making signs with their hands. Bernal
jumped out of the still-moving car without saying a word and
began shooting. He got back into the car and appellant drove
away. She knew something bad had happened, but she was
scared so she did not ask any questions about it. Afterward, she

-- 2 of 4 --

3
was shocked and did not know what to do. (Cortez, supra, 63
Cal.4th at pp. 109-110.)
Appellant and Bernal were convicted of murder and
premeditated attempted murder. On appeal, we affirmed
Bernal’s conviction but reversed appellant’s conviction due to
several prejudicial errors. (Cortez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 105.)
We did not reach additional issues raised by appellant, including
whether the trial court applied the wrong standard when ruling
on her new trial motion.
The Supreme Court reversed our judgment and remanded
for further proceedings. (Cortez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 134.)
On remand, we reversed the judgment and remanded for
the trial court to rehear and redetermine appellant’s new trial
motion under the appropriate standard.
On remand, the trial court denied the motion, stating on
the record that it had “conduct[ed] an independent examination
in weighing all the evidence.” Appellant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal.
After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel
filed an opening brief asking this court to review the record
independently pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441.
On August 16, 2017, we advised appellant she had 30 days to
submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider.
Appellant did not file a supplemental brief.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no
arguable issues exist and appellant’s counsel has fully satisfied
his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528
U.S. 259, 279-284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

-- 3 of 4 --

4
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
FLIER, J.
WE CONCUR:
RUBIN, Acting P. J.
GRIMES, J.

-- 4 of 4 --