People v. Hernandez CA4/1

Filed 10/27/26 P. v. Hernandez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D085980 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FWV21004219) v. JOSE ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Ingrid Adamson Uhler, Judge. Affirmed. Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Marvin E. Mizell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  INTRODUCTION Jose Alejandro Hernandez was convicted in 2024 of first degree murder. He appeals, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because it does not establish that he acted with premeditation and deliberation. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND I. The Prosecution’s Case A. November 8, 2021 Theft from Circle K In 2021, J.G. worked as a Circle K cashier in Rancho Cucamonga, California. She got to know 25-year-old Hernandez because he worked at a nearby Papa John’s pizza restaurant and would visit the Circle K about twice a week. Sometime after meeting Hernandez, J.G. met his twin brother, Alexis, who also worked at Papa John’s. J.G. formed a friendship with the men, and they became protective of her. On the night of November 8, 2021, while J.G. was working at the Circle K, Hernandez and Alexis were just entering the store when a man grabbed cigarettes and ran away. Hernandez and Alexis chased after the man while J.G. called law enforcement. Hernandez and Alexis returned to the store about 15 minutes later. Hernandez’s face looked like it was on fire and he told J.G. he had been sprayed with pepper spray. At trial, Hernandez testified that when he and Alexis caught up to the thief, the thief sprayed them with pepper spray and brandished a knife before running away. Hernandez explained that after this incident, he became afraid of people who stole and began carrying a knife to defend himself. 2 B. November 10, 2021 Theft from Circle K and Resulting Murder Two nights later, on November 10, 2021, J.G. was hanging out with Hernandez and Alexis outside the Circle K when Jordan Parish stole beer from the store. J.G.’s coworker came outside, pointed toward Parish as he walked quickly away, and yelled, “Stop that man. Stop that man. He stole [beer].” As they had done two nights before, Hernandez and Alexis went after the thief. Hernandez went directly after Parish, while Alexis first stopped at his car to get a can of pepper spray. They caught up to Parish at a nearby bus stop. J.G. watched as Hernandez and Alexis spoke with Parish while he sat at the bus stop. J.G. saw Parish stand up quickly and Alexis point his pepper spray at him. The three men then ran from the bus stop. J.G. did not see any of the men hit each other while at the bus stop. J.G. continued watching as Parish ran across the street with the other men following. The three men jumped over a hedge into a shopping mall parking lot and headed toward a bowling alley. Bowling alley patrons saw Parish enter the bowling alley followed by Hernandez and Alexis. Hernandez and Alexis shouted at Parish and pushed him from behind. Hernandez went around the other side of Parish and “boxed him in,” and then they both started punching Parish in the stomach and chest area. Parish did not attempt to hit Hernandez or Alexis. Parish moved to the threshold of the women’s restroom. There, Hernandez and Alexis surrounded him. As Parish hunched over in a standing fetal position with his hands curled over this chest and eyes for protection, Hernandez and Alexis punched him in the sides and abdomen. Parish did not hit Hernandez and Alexis. The fight inside the bathroom 3 lasted about 15 to 30 seconds. Hernandez then fled the bowling alley, yelling to Alexis as he went that the cops were coming. Parish exited the bathroom with blood on his face and leaned on a table. Alexis approached, sprayed him with pepper spray, and yelled that he had robbed a store. Parish struggled with Alexis to get away, but he did not punch or kick Alexis. Alexis then kicked Parish and he fell on his back. Alexis told Parish, “This is what you get for stealing.” Bowling alley employees also saw Hernandez and Alexis chasing Parish and saw Alexis spray him in the face with pepper spray and kick him to the floor. The manager approached Parish and saw a cut in his sweatshirt and blood pooling in his torso area. He also saw drops of blood between the bathroom area and where Parish fell. Employees held Alexis at the scene until police arrived. When Hernandez returned to the Circle K, he told J.G. that the police detained Alexis at the bowling alley. He stayed at the Circle K until police arrived. Parish died on the floor of the bowling alley. C. The Investigation San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Homicide Detective Malcom Page responded to the homicide call at the bowling alley. The detective observed blood inside the women’s bathroom and a blood trail from the threshold of the bathroom to Parish’s body. He presumed Parish was stabbed in the bathroom because that is where the blood trail started. Detective Page and other Sheriff’s Department personnel were unable to locate the murder weapon. 4  Photos of Hernandez taken after the murder revealed no cuts or bruises on his torso, back, face, or hands. Similarly, Detective Page did not observe any injuries to Alexis’s hands, palms, wrists, or arms. The medical examiner who conducted Parish’s autopsy testified that Parish had a four-inch-deep sharp force injury on the left side of his chest, a defect to the left side of his ribcage, and a fatal injury to his heart. Parish had blood around his heart and in the left side of his chest, indicating he “bled out internally.” These injuries could have been caused by a knife and would have required “a substantial amount of force.” Parish also had scrapes and a bruise on his torso and bruises on his left arm and right knee. His blood alcohol content was .175 percent. Parish’s sweatshirt had one defect in “the belly area” and another near the bottom hem, each of which, in the medical examiner’s opinion, could have been consistent with Parish’s chest wound.1 According to the medical examiner, Parish’s chest wound could have been inflicted by an assailant standing in front of him and stabbing him with the left hand directly into his heart cavity, or he could have been bent over when an assailant stabbed him in the heart in an upward fashion. He also testified that Parish’s wound could have been inflicted when he was bent over and the assailant aimed a knife at his waist but inadvertently hit his heart. Hernandez testified that Parish was standing straight up when he stabbed him and he did not wield the knife with an “upward thrust.” He also testified that he is right-handed, but he told police he stabbed Parish with his left hand. 1 Parish’s sweatshirt had a third defect on the back that the medical examiner did not think was consistent with Parish’s chest wound. 5  San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Deputy Michael Acuna transported Hernandez and Alexis to the Sheriff’s Department headquarters following the murder. Deputy Acuna surreptitiously placed a recording device in his patrol car and then left Hernandez and Alexis alone in the car while the device was recording. The relevant portion of their conversation is as follows:2 “[Alexis]: Why did you do it dude? “[Hernandez]: It was just once, dude. I thought that—that—I thought I was going to [inaudible] here, dude. Right here. [inaudible] “[Alexis]: I don’t want to believe it, dude. I don’t want to believe it. “[Hernandez]: It’s okay, dude. I defended you, dude. That’s all that matters, dude. “[Alexis]: I can box. “[Hernandez]: So. What? Do you want for us to put the blame on you? “[Alexis]: Huh? “[Hernandez]: So, you want to take the blame? Is that what you want to tell me, dude? “[Alexis]: Yes. You can’t box dude. “[Hernandez]: I’m not going to let you, dude. Fucking go to hell, dude. “[Alexis]: No, bro. 2 Hernandez and Alexis spoke to each other in Spanish and English. The People provided the jury with a transcript that includes both the original conversation in both English and Spanish and the full English translation. The parties stipulated to the accuracy of the English translation and the trial court instructed the jurors that non-Spanish speakers could rely on the English translation when considering the recording. 6 “[Hernandez]: But then they’re going to say that what did you do with the knife, dude. “[Alexis]: Nah bro. [ ] I’m not letting you go. “[Hernandez]: Or what you can say is that you got him with the pepper spray. With the tip you—you stung them once and you didn’t think that— “[Alexis]: They found out it was a knife, dude. Everyone opened their mouths. Everyone so the pursuit is over. “[Alexis]: Why did you do it, dude? “[Hernandez]: It was unintentional, dude. [inaudible] I’ll go with the police[.] “[¶] . . . [¶] “[Hernandez]: . . . . What’s going to happen, dude? Tell me now, dude, so I know. “[Alexis]: [inaudible] They are going to ask if you stabbed him or how? [inaudible] “[Hernandez]: So, what should I say “no”? If you want, I’ll go, dude. “[¶] . . . [¶] “[Hernandez]: [inaudible] they’re going to want to take you with me, dude. “[Alexis]: I told them that I didn’t see anything. I didn’t see anything. That’s right all I know is I kicked him and boom. He fell back and that’s when the blood fell on me. That’s when I noticed in the lady that said I didn’t see anyone stab him with a knife. “[Hernandez]: Did she say she didn’t see anything? “[Alexis]: Yes. Almost all of them said they didn’t see anything. “[Hernandez]: So then we’ll stick with our story like that dude. 7  “[¶] . . . [¶] “[Alexis]: I know. That’s what I’m telling him too, fool. I told him. I’m all like, dude, no one—no one did anything to him. I’m all like, straight up, you know? I didn’t see [inaudible] the bushes hard as fuck. And then I seen him running weird. I don’t know if he had something. Maybe he got rid of it or I don’t know. ‘Cause I— “[Hernandez]: That’s what I was saying too, dude. ‘Cause I was like— “[Alexis]: Because I seen him ok he asked me, do you think your brother would stab him? I was like no. I don’t think so. I was like—I was like no. Hell no. I doubt he would do that—he’ll do something like that stupid. I was like I—I doubt it that he’ll do something like that stupid. “[¶] . . . [¶] “[Alexis]: All I did was pepper spray him.” Hernandez later gave conflicting statements to police. At trial, he testified that he lied through the whole interrogation, he did not remember the interviews he gave to police, and some conflicting statements he gave to police were merely the result of his confusion. II. The Defense’s Case In his testimony, Hernandez described how he and his brother were bullied in school. They share a special bond because they are twins, and Hernandez felt proud of being the older brother because he was born about an hour earlier. He was protective of Alexis and the rest of his family. He admitted he once threatened his sister’s boyfriend and pointed an airsoft gun at him, but he explained he did it to protect her and their mother. 8  As to the November 8, 2021 incident, he explained he went after the cigarette thief “to stop [him] from stealing and detain [him] for the police.” He and Alexis confronted the thief in an apartment complex behind the Circle K and told him to give the stolen goods back. It made Hernandez feel like a hero, which was important to him. But, in response to being stopped, the man “became very physical and aggressive,” sprayed Hernandez and Alexis with pepper spray, and brandished a knife. Hernandez backed up toward his car and the man ran away. He testified that the deputy who responded to the theft call told him, “ ‘Good job. Well done.’ ” As to the November 10, 2021 incident, Hernandez testified he was carrying his knife in his pocket that night. When he heard Parish stole from the Circle K, he “went into action to find the guy” so he could stop him from stealing and “protect the females that were working [at the Circle K] that night.” Hernandez and Alexis caught up to Parish at a bus stop where he was sitting down with the stolen beer. According to Hernandez, when he asked Parish to return the beer he stood up and said, “ ‘Oh, take it from me.’ ” Hernandez told Parish to calm down. Hernandez claimed Parish then got “aggressive” and “hostile,” punched Hernandez twice, and appeared to reach for something. Hernandez feared Parish had a knife or a gun, but he never saw a weapon. Alexis then punched Parish once in the face and sprayed him with pepper spray, prompting Parish to run away. Hernandez testified that he chased after Parish with a plan to detain him by wrapping his belt around Parish’s legs. But he later changed his testimony and stated that he told Alexis not to pursue Parish, but Alexis continued after him anyway. Hernandez claimed that, during the pursuit, Parish ran across the street, nearly getting hit by oncoming traffic. Hernandez stated that he tried to grab Parish and pull him back, and told 9 him, “ ‘Hey, bro, stop. You’re going to get ranned over.’ ” But Parish continued running across the street. Hernandez caught up with Parish on the other side of the street in a shopping mall parking lot. He tried to grab Parish, but Parish started pushing and shoving and got away. Hernandez explained he was not trying to hurt Parish but was just trying to detain him for the police. Hernandez claimed he wanted to give up the chase, but he followed as Alexis chased Parish into the bowling alley. Hernandez testified that when he entered the bowling alley Alexis and Parish were engaged in a “physical altercation.” Because his brother “needed” him, Hernandez “ran into the action,” catching up to the other two men as they fought in the bathroom. To get Parish to stop hurting Alexis, Hernandez punched Parish “a couple times” in the stomach and then pulled a knife from his pocket and stabbed him one time. He then ran from the bowling alley, yelling for Alexis to follow him. He ran back to the Circle K, handing the knife to a stranger he passed along the way. He testified that he fled because he was scared, nervous, and panicked. Hernandez stated he aimed for Parish’s stomach when he stabbed him because he “wasn’t really trying to hurt him”, and he does not know how he hit Parish’s heart. He explained that when he was talking to his brother in the patrol car he gestured to his stomach when he said, “ ‘I thought I was going to [inaudible] here, dude. Right here.’ ” Hernandez testified that he believed you cannot kill someone by stabbing them in the stomach. When confronted with the inconsistencies in his testimony, Hernandez admitted he was “trying to lie” in his earlier testimony. Some of his 10 testimony was truthful and some of it was not. In Hernandez’s words, he does “a whole bunch of lying.”3 Hernandez’s mother testified the twins were born one month premature and had delays in speech, socialization, and motor skills. They were both later diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and borderline intellectual disability and were placed in special education programs throughout their schooling. They were bullied as children and Hernandez had some difficulty making friends. According to his mother, Hernandez is very protective of everyone, especially Alexis, and believed it was his responsibility to care for the family. He did not have a violent nature and the only incidents in which he displayed violent behavior resulted from his attempts to protect his siblings. Other relatives of Hernandez testified that he was a good, principled, and nonviolent person. The defense also presented the expert testimony of a licensed clinical social worker who confirmed that Hernandez had previously been diagnosed with ADHD and an intellectual disability. She explained that due to these diagnoses Hernandez could exhibit increased impulsivity in decisionmaking and judgment-making. He also could exhibit “a sense of social immaturity and difficulty to make decisions in social situations” and have difficulty 3 At the close of evidence, the trial court informed the jury that the parties had stipulated to allowing the jury to consider the police reports from Parish’s 2016 felony assault with a deadly weapon conviction resulting from his stabbing his brother and Hernandez’s 2020 misdemeanor criminal threats conviction resulting from his threatening his sister’s boyfriend. While cross- examining Hernandez, the prosecutor detailed the incident in which Parish was intoxicated and stabbed his brother in the head with a kitchen knife. Hernandez testified he did not know about this incident when he stabbed Parish and thus, at the time, he did not know if Parish was a good guy or a bad guy. 11 appreciating the consequences of actions. The social worker explained that, if Hernandez viewed the incident with the cigarette thief as traumatic, he could have been experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder two days later when he confronted Parish, which could have manifested in “hypervigilance, being on edge, feeling a sense of mistrust towards other people, potentially engaging in unsafe behaviors, viewing others as unsafe and maybe even a potential threat to his overall safety.” III. Conviction and Sentencing The trial court instructed Hernandez’s jury on multiple theories of liability on which it could find him guilty, namely first degree murder, second degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter. The court also instructed the jury on the justifiable killing in defense of another, and Hernandez urged the jury to find him not guilty of murder because he acted in defense of Alexis. The jury returned verdicts convicting Hernandez of first degree murder (Pen. Code,4 § 187, subd. (a)) with the use of a deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to a state prison term of one year plus 25 years to life.5 4 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 5 Alexis was charged with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and his matter was severed from Hernandez’s case for trial. 12  DISCUSSION “In considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review ‘the whole record in the light most favorable to the 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.’ ” (People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307; Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.) “A reviewing court is precluded from making its own subjective determination of guilt.” (People v. Sanchez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 325, 330 (Sanchez).) “ ‘[I]t is the jury rather than the reviewing court that weighs the evidence, resolves conflicting inferences and determines whether the People have established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (People v. Disa (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 654, 664.) But a reviewing court is permitted to credit only evidence reasonably inspiring confidence in the verdict. (Collins, at p. 307.) “ ‘Mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion is not’ ” sufficient. (People v. Anderson (1968) 70 Cal.2d 15, 24 (Anderson).) An appellant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence under these standards “bears an enormous burden.” (Sanchez, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 330.) “The test is not whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether substantial evidence, of credible and solid value, supports the jury’s conclusion.” (People v. Stewart (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 785, 790.) “Unless it is clearly shown that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdicts, we will not reverse.” (Ibid. [cleaned up].) “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought.” (§ 187, subd. (a).) A killing that is “willful, deliberate, and 13 premeditated” is murder in the first degree. (§ 189, subd. (a).) Premeditation “encompasses the idea that a defendant thought about or considered the act beforehand.” (People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 443.) “[D]eliberation refers to careful weighing of considerations in forming a course of action.” (Ibid. [cleaned up].) “The true test is not the duration of time as much as it is the extent of the reflection. Thoughts may follow each other with great rapidity and cold, calculated judgment may be arrived at quickly.” (People v. Thomas (1945) 25 Cal.2d 880, 900.) The California Supreme Court has identified three categories of evidence relevant to considering the sufficiency of the evidence of premeditation and deliberation: (1) “ ‘planning’ activity” prior to the killing, showing the defendant engaged in acts intended to result in the death; (2) conduct “from which the jury could reasonably infer a ‘motive‘ to kill the victim”; and (3) “the manner of killing,” which is “so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a ‘preconceived design.’ ” (Anderson, supra, 70 Cal.2d at pp. 26–27, italics omitted.) Courts typically sustain the verdict where the evidence includes (1) “evidence of all three types,” (2) “extremely strong evidence” of planning, or (3) evidence of motive combined with evidence of either planning or manner. (Id. at p. 27.) Reviewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict and respecting the province of the jury to weigh the evidence and resolve conflicting inferences, we find substantial evidence of credible and solid value supports the jury’s verdict. Specifically, we find sufficient evidence of all three Anderson factors to support the jury’s finding that Hernandez killed Parish with premeditation and deliberation. 14  First, there is some credible evidence of planning. After the cigarette thief brandished a knife on November 8, Hernandez began carrying his own knife to protect himself from thieves he might confront in the future. Just two nights later, knowing he had the knife in his pocket, and despite the fact that he and Alexis had Parish outnumbered, Hernandez chose to confront Parish and chase him until he was cornered in the threshold of the bathroom. This is sufficient credible evidence Hernandez engaged in planning activity before killing Parish. (See People v. Ocegueda (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 548, 561–562 (Ocegueda) [finding sufficient evidence of planning for purposes of premeditation and deliberation where defendant armed himself with two knives after fighting with victim then pursued the victim across multiple traffic lanes and into an apartment complex where he committed the murder].) Second, there is conduct by Hernandez from which the jury could reasonably infer he had a motive to kill Parish. Hernandez admitted he felt a personal duty to protect his family and the female employees at the Circle K. And he sought to teach Parish a lesson for stealing. In his own words, he wanted to be a hero. In addition, the jury could have reasonably inferred that Hernandez was angry with Parish in particular. Parish was attempting to evade accountability for his theft, just as the cigarette thief had done two days before, and resisted Hernandez’s efforts to detain him. And Hernandez continued to pursue Parish and used force against him despite all independent witnesses testifying that Parish was not the aggressor. From this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that Hernandez had a hero complex and harbored specific animosity toward Parish and, thus, supports a finding that he had a motive to kill. (See Ocegueda, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 562 [sufficient evidence of motive for purposes of premeditation and 15 deliberation where defendant was angry with victim because they exchanged words before the fighting began and then the victim “allowed [another man] to hit [the defendant] with [a] skateboard when they were supposed to fight one-on-one”].) Third, the manner of the killing further supports the jury’s finding of premeditation and deliberation. Despite the evidence that Parish was not the aggressor, Hernandez doggedly chased him into a partially secluded bathroom threshold and stabbed him with “a substantial amount of force” in the heart. Importantly, the medical examiner testified that Parish could have sustained his injuries by an assailant stabbing an upright Parish with the left hand directly into his heart cavity. And Hernandez told police he stabbed Parish with his left hand and testified at trial that Parish was standing up straight when he stabbed him. Although the medical examiner also testified that Parish could have been killed in a scenario where he was bent over and an assailant accidentally stabbed him in the heart while aiming for his stomach, this is not consistent with Hernandez’s testimony that Parish was upright when he stabbed him. A killing committed by pursuing a victim and then stabbing him directly in the heart is sufficient to support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. (See Ocegueda, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at p. 562 [sufficient evidence of manner of killing for premeditation and deliberation where defendant pursued victim “for many minutes and had ample opportunity for reflection” but continued to intensify his violence against the victim]; see also People v. Harris (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1269, 1286–1287 [reviewing trial court denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal from first degree murder conviction, which applies the same standard as a sufficiency of the evidence claim, and finding evidence was sufficient to prove premeditation and deliberation where “defendant was 16 armed with a knife and stabbed [the victim] without provocation directly in the heart with enough force to penetrate part of a rib and pierce entirely through the heart”].) We note that, unlike his theory at trial, Hernandez does not argue here that he killed Parish in defense of Alexis. Rather, he argues the killing was an impulsive act committed without reflection and consideration of the consequences. We are not persuaded. As detailed by the evidence we have discussed, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Hernandez killed Parish after making a calculated decision to carry a knife for purposes of confronting anyone who stole from the Circle K and then stabbed Parish with substantial force in a vital area of his body. Hernandez’s jury considered all the evidence and theories, both for and against conviction, and found him guilty of first degree murder. Because this verdict is supported by the evidence, we affirm. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. DO, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: 17 RUBIN, J. BERMÚDEZ, J. 18