People v. Zaragosa CA4/1

── People v. Zaragosa CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Zaragosa CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084814 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 24AD-000285) JESUS ZARAGOSA JR., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, David S. Cohn, Judge. Remanded with directions. Sheila O’Connor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, R. Matthew Wise and Kevin L. Quade, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Jesus Zaragosa Jr. appeals the denial of his application for a concealed carry weapon license. Statutory changes since Zaragosa first applied mean that, even if Zaragosa might have once been entitled to obtain a concealed carry license, he may not possess one if he is a “disqualified person” under Penal Code section 26202. (Pen. Code, § 26195(b).) Although the trial court found Zaragosa disqualified, the underlying record is years old and may not comply with current statutorily required investigation standards. (See § 26202(b).) We therefore remand to the trial court with directions to remand the matter to the licensing authority to investigate whether Zaragosa is a disqualified person ineligible to hold a concealed carry license under sections 26195(b) and 26202. I. A. In 2023, the law provided that the licensing authority “may issue” a concealed carry license upon proof that the applicant “is of good moral character,” among other requirements. (Former § 26150, subd. (a)(1), amended by Stats. 2023, ch. 249, § 10.) Zaragosa applied for a license to carry a concealed weapon in 2023. In his application, Zaragosa answered various background questions. He indicated he drinks alcoholic beverages “[r]arely and [in] small amount[s],” citing “low tolerance.” Zaragosa disclosed that he “was given” antidepressants to treat his depression. As a minor, Zaragosa was arrested on a drug-related charge that was later dismissed. According to Zaragosa, the only time he has used physical force against anyone was to defend himself during a school fight when he was 17 years old. On matters of domestic violence, restraining orders, and losing his temper, Zaragosa explained that he was the subject of a six-month restraining order in 2011 because of “claims” he threatened the protected person’s life. Zaragosa’s daughter later accused that same person of rape, which prompted the person to seek another restraining order against Zaragosa in 2022 because “he feels that [Zaragosa] might hurt him.” In 2022, 2 Zaragosa obtained a three-year civil harassment restraining order protecting him and his children from this same person. Zaragosa underwent a psychological evaluation as part of his application. Under “Interview Impressions,” the evaluator indicated “No Concerns,” yet he identified “Mental health concerns” elsewhere. According to the evaluation summary, Zaragosa responded to an assessment “in a guarded, defensive manner, possibly invalid[at]ing the protocol results.” As a result, “the test results were inconclusive for the presence or absence of mental illness.” Za