People v. Duran CA4/1

── People v. Duran CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/3/26 P. v. Duran CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D087610 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RIF2203730) v. JOSHUA JESSE DURAN, JR., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Jason L. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  I INTRODUCTION Joshua Jesse Duran, Jr., a member of the Mi Gangsta Familia (MGF) gang, shot and killed 33-year-old Brian Davis because he mistakenly believed Davis was a member of a rival gang. A jury found Duran guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and returned a true finding on a gang-murder special circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). The jury also returned a true finding on a sentencing enhancement allegation that Duran personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury or death to another person. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court sentenced Duran to prison for life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for the murder conviction, plus a consecutive indeterminate term of 25-years-to-life for the firearm enhancement. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, Duran presents three claims of error. First, he contends the trial court erred by permitting the prosecution’s gang expert to relate case-specific testimonial hearsay in violation of state law and the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Second, he asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the gang-murder special circumstance finding. Third, he argues the court erred by imposing (and then staying) a $10,000 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45. The People dispute Duran’s first two claims, but concur with his third argument that the parole revocation fine was unauthorized. We agree the court erred by imposing the parole revocation fine because Duran’s sentence does not include a period of parole, but reject 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Duran’s other contentions. Therefore, we strike the parole revocation fine and affirm the judgment as modified. II BACKGROUND A. Prosecution Case 1. Shooting of Brian Davis On the afternoon of June 21, 2022, Brian Davis was sitting on his bicycle at the corner of Melody Lane and Hickory Lane in Riverside, waiting to meet his children after school so he could walk them to his father’s nearby home on Hickory Lane. Two rival gangs, MGF and Black Star Mafia, claimed the area as their respective territories. Black Star Mafia consists primarily of African American members and uses the logo of the Dallas Cowboys football team as its symbol. Davis, an African American man, was not a member of any gang. However, he was wearing a Dallas Cowboys football jersey that fateful afternoon. Whil