People v. Lopez CA4/2

── People v. Lopez CA4/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 P. v. Lopez CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E085921 v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB800271) JESSE LOPEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Donna G. Garza, Judge. Affirmed with directions. Law Office of Brad Poore and 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, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  I. INTRODUCTION After defendant and appellant Jesse Lopez’s conviction for premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/187, subd. (a)), which he had committed when he was 16 years old, along with true findings on firearm and gang enhancements, were affirmed on direct appeal, People v. Lopez (Mar. 25, 2011, No. E049617) [non pub. opn.] (Lopez I), defendant, who had served 15 years of his sentence of 42 years to life in prison, filed petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A) (section 1170(d)(1)), arguing his sentence was functional equivalent of life without parole and violated equal protection. The trial court denied the petition and defendant appealed. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his petition because the court misunderstood the requirements for recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1) and that the error violated his right to equal protection. He thus believes the matter should be remanded for further proceedings. He also asserts that the amended abstract of judgment should be amended in accordance with this court’s prior opinion. We agree with the parties that the amended abstract of judgment must again be amended but reject defendant’s remaining contentions. 1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2  II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On December 28, 2007, Ortuno and Joel Pastrana (Pastrana), who lived in the garage of Ortuno’s family’s residence, were in the front yard of their residence on 7th Street drinking beer, happy at the prospect of possibly getting jobs after filling out employment applications. While Ortuno and Pastrana chatted, a car pulled up in front of the house next door. There were four occupants in the vehicle: the driver, defendant, a woman, and the next door neighbor Rodolfo.3 After the car pulled up in front of Rodolfo’s house, Rodolfo exited the vehicle. Ortuno and Pastrana joked with Rodolfo about seeing him leave just minutes before in a white truck, and returning in the car. (Lopez I, supra, E049617.) The driver of the car (later identified as defendant’s brother Jose Lopez) got out, approached Ortuno, and demanded to know why Ortuno and Pastrana were laughing and what the