People v. Murillo CA5

── People v. Murillo CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 23, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/23/26 P. v. Murillo CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F090418 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR056744B) v. JORGE DAVID MURILLO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Ernest J. LiCalsi, Judge. Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary, Christina Simpson and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  Appellant Jorge David Murillo appeals after his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.61 was denied following an evidentiary hearing. Appellant challenges the trial court’s finding that he is ineligible for resentencing because he acted with reckless indifference to human life. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 Appellant’s conviction arose out of a 2017 robbery and murder involving appellant, James Ridge, and Kahlid Ramsey. Appellant was charged with murder committed during the course of a felony. Appellant initially pleaded guilty to one count of first degree murder. Under the terms of the plea agreement, appellant agreed to testify truthfully in Ridge’s trial in exchange for the right to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea to modified charges, resulting in a stipulated sentence of 18 years in prison instead of a term of 25 years to life. In September 2018, after testifying as required, appellant successfully withdrew his initial plea and entered a guilty plea to a changed set of offenses, including voluntary manslaughter. In January 2023, appellant filed a petition for resentencing. After the trial court initially denied the petition on procedural grounds, appellant successfully appealed. Following remittitur, the people conceded appellant had made a prima facie showing for relief and requested an evidentiary hearing. The People opposed relief, however, relying on the prior evidence presented at Ridge’s trial to demonstrate appellant was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The trial court held an 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 On February 13, 2026, this court took judicial notice of the appellate records and nonpublished opinion filed in People v. Ridge (Dec. 18, 2020, F077952). On September 16, 2025, this court took judicial notice of the records from two prior appeals filed by appellant, cases Nos. F079876 and F086398, detailing his prior proceedings and testimony relevant to this appeal. 2. evidentiary hearing where both parties generally relied on the underlying record and presented argument to the court. As appellant testified at Ridge’s trial, appellant and Elisha Jones developed a plan to beat up and rob James Pany based on allegations that Pany had inappropriately touched young girls associated with Jones’s family. At the time, Pany was da