People v. Foster CA2/8

── People v. Foster CA2/8 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 P. v. Foster CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B337548 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA159188) v. EMMANUEL MIRRIEN FOSTER, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Connie R. Quinones, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions. Judith Kahn, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. **********  A jury found defendant and appellant Emmanuel Mirrien Foster guilty of one count of first degree murder, and found true the allegation he personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder. The jury also found defendant guilty of one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling. Defendant received a sentence of 35 years to life plus 1 year 8 months. Defendant challenges his conviction, arguing the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting his pretrial statements to an undercover informant during what is commonly referred to as a Perkins operation. (Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292 (Perkins).) Defendant contends the court also erred in admitting pretrial statements made by codefendant Willie Jones in a separate Perkins operation. Finally, defendant says that if we do not reverse his convictions due to the admission of the pretrial statements, then we should remand for resentencing due to several sentencing errors. As we explain below, we conclude remand for a full resentencing hearing is warranted. We otherwise affirm the judgment of conviction in its entirety. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On October 30, 2022, Robert Walton was fatally shot on South Clymar Avenue in Compton. Defendant and codefendant Jones were arrested and charged with one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a);1 count 1). Defendant was also charged with one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246; count 2). As to count 1, defendant was alleged to have personally used a firearm in the commission of the murder within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivision (a). The People also alleged multiple 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 aggravating factors. (Cal. Rules of Court, 4.421(a)(1)–(a)(3) & (b)(1).) Jones is not a party to this appeal. Evidence at the joint jury trial established the following facts material to our discussion. 1. Testimony of the victim’s girlfriend I.H. In October 2022, I.H. had been dating Walton for about three years. Walton’s nickname was Nuskii, and he drove a white Mercedes-Benz. I.H. also knew defendant and codefendant Jones. Defendant, who went by the moniker Active, had once lived in the same apartment complex as I.H. As for Jones, I.H. had known him and most of his family since she was a child. Jones was often called Nu-Nu or Tiny Hands. Jones’s brother Lorenzo had been killed sometime in 2020. I.H. knew Jones had a motorcycle and had seen him riding it numerous times in