People v. Ortega CA5

── People v. Ortega CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/8/26 P. v. Ortega CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F088562 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF185882B) v. JERRY WILLIAM ORTEGA, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Brian M. McNamara, Judge. Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench and Jessica A. Eros, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- INTRODUCTION In 2021, appellant Jerry William Ortega and his codefendant, Angel Greg Cordero, both fired multiple shots at Billy A., killing him.  In 2024, a jury convicted appellant of first degree murder and other felonies. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP), plus additional consecutive terms. Appellant raises a single issue on appeal. He contends the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s true findings on gang enhancements (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1))1 attached to counts 1 and 2, and a gang-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)), attached to count 1. Respondent concedes that the evidence is insufficient, and a remand is required. We agree with the parties. The record contains no evidence that appellant committed this murder to provide a common benefit to a criminal street gang that was more than reputational, as required by section 186.22, subdivision (g). Accordingly, the gang enhancements and the gang-murder special circumstance must be stricken, and the matter remanded for full resentencing. We otherwise affirm. BACKGROUND Although appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his gang enhancements, he does not challenge the evidence underlying his substantive convictions, including the murder. We briefly summarize the relevant facts, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment. (See In re Jesus O. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 859, 861; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) I. The 2021 Murder. In 2021, Billy A. was shot to death by two gunmen. The shooting occurred in the parking lot of a hotel. Surveillance video recorded this shooting. The two shooters waited in their vehicle in and around the parking lot for about four hours before ambushing Billy A. 1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2.  The prosecution established that appellant and Cordero were the two shooters who killed Billy A. Cell phone records placed appellant’s and Cordero’s respective phones in proximity to the crime scene at the time of this murder. These times corresponded to the arrival and departure of the shooters’ vehicle from the parking lot in question. Appellant’s deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was found on a cigarette butt recovered at the murder scene. Cordero’s DNA wa