People v. Rosales CA2/6

── People v. Rosales CA2/6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/15/26 P. v. Rosales CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B334514 (Super. Ct. No. VA146646) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County) v. JORGE LUIS ROSALES, Defendant and Appellant. Jorge Luis Rosales (Appellant) appeals from the judgment after a jury convicted him of the first degree murder of Adrian Casas (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a); count 1), assault with a firearm on Martin Magallon (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 11). The jury also found true firearm enhancements as to count 1 (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)) and count 2 (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court also found Appellant had been previously convicted of 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. a “strike” offense (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) consisting of a gang-enhanced firearm possession charge (former § 12031, subd. (a)(1), § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). The court sentenced Appellant to state prison for 75 years to life, plus a consecutive determinate sentence of 19 years, four months. Appellant contends: (1) the trial court erred when it admitted the codefendant’s statement implicating Appellant, (2) evidence of Appellant’s criminal history was improperly admitted, (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct when discussing reasonable doubt in closing argument, (4) the cumulative effect of errors requires reversal, (5) multiple sentences were improperly imposed for assault with a firearm and felon in possession of a firearm, and (6) the prosecution did not establish the prior conviction constitutes a strike. We vacate the true finding regarding the strike prior and remand for retrial of the strike. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The shooting In May 2017, Richard Magallon, his cousin Martin Magallon,2 and Adrian Casas attended a family gathering at the house of Richard’s uncle. Richard drove his uncle’s motorized bicycle around the neighborhood. It was still light outside. He rode past a parked four-door black car and saw two men inside. Richard felt someone was “mad-dogging” him, which meant giving him “an ugly stare.” Richard saw that the man in the passenger seat had a tattoo of large letters across his neck. Richard later identified him as Appellant. 2 Because they share the same last name and for ease of reference, we refer to Richard and Martin Magallon by their first names. No disrespect is intended. 2  When Richard returned to the house, Martin and Casas were in front. The black car drove past the house, turned around, then turned into the cul-de-sac where the house was located. The car stopped in front of the driveway. Appellant got out of the car. He had a neck tattoo of a letter in Old English writing. Appellant held a firearm covered with a black bandana. He pointed the firearm at Martin and asked him and Casas, “Where are you vatos from?” Martin said he was “from here” and “Maravilla.” Appellant told Martin to lift his shirt. Martin complied, displaying a Maravilla tattoo. Appellant then asked Casas where he was from, and told him to lift his shirt. Casas did not reply and did not lift his s