People v. Zepeda CA4/2

── People v. Zepeda CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 P. v. Zepeda CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E083230 v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA901805) LUIS ORDONEZ ZEPEDA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lisa M. Rogan, Judge. Affirmed. Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  Defendant and appellant Luis Ordonez Zepeda appeals the order of the San Bernardino County Superior Court summarily denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.1 We will affirm. BACKGROUND2 In October 2009, defendant and three others (Lee Johnson, Roberto Tirado Osuna, and Lucio Jimenez) went to the home of Robert Ramirez for the purpose of stealing 60 kilograms of cocaine and about $100,000 in cash. The robbery resulted in the death of Ramirez and Jimenez. 1. Defendant Is Charged In April 2019, defendant and codefendant Johnson were charged in a second amended information with several offenses arising from their participation in the robbery including two counts of murder (§ 187, subd. (a), counts 1 & 2). It was further alleged that, in connection with the murders (counts 1 & 2), (i) Johnson personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); (ii) he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)); (iii) Johnson’s personal and intentional shooting of a firearm caused great bodily injury and death of the victims, Ramirez and Jimenez (§ 12022.53, 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The record on appeal is scant. Some of the background facts have been taken from our opinion issued in People v. Osuna (Jan. 14, 2026, E081292) [nonpub. opn.]. We have taken judicial notice of that opinion on our own motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).) 2 subd. (d)); and (iv) the murders are serious and violent felonies within the meaning of sections 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8) and 667.5, subdivision (c)(8).3 2. Defendant’s Charges Are Evaluated After Passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 While the charges against defendant were pending, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, effective January 1, 2019. That bill amended sections 188 and 189 to significantly limit the reach of the felony-murder rule and to eliminate the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases of first- and second-degree murder as it applies to aiding and abetting. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).) Section 189 as amended by Senate Bill 1437, provides in relevant part that a participant in the perpetration of a robbery in which a death occurs is liable for first degree murder only if it is proven that the p