Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VELIA MARINA JUAREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OPINIONFACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a jury found defendant and appellant Velia Marina Juarez guilty of one count of first degree felony murder. (See Pen.Code, § 187.) We will affirm the judgment.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief in this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel summarized the record, stated that defendant had been notified by counsel of her right to raise any issues through supplemental briefing that defendant might wish to file in this court, and requested that this court independently review the record to determine whether there are arguable issues on appeal. We have done so. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)
John Rodriguez was angry with Jose Torres because of an incident in which Torres, apparently accidentally, struck Cynthia Navarez during an argument. For three months, Rodriguez told Navarez and defendant that he was going to rob and “rough up” Torres. Navarez is Rodriguez's sister and was defendant's girlfriend.
Torres lived in a small house behind the house defendant shared with her father. Rodriguez told defendant he wanted her to tell him when Torres was home and had money on his person, so that Rodriguez could “come up” on him. The evidence established that Rodriguez was a violent felon with a reputation for robbing and killing people. Defendant testified Rodriguez repeatedly threatened to harm defendant's father if defendant did not help Rodriguez set up the Torres robbery.
Around 1:00 o'clock on the morning of November 16, 2008, Torres invited defendant to go to a fast food restaurant. Defendant went with him. On the way home, defendant called Rodriguez and told him they were returning home. Defendant left Torres in the yard between their homes. As she entered her house, she heard “a couple of hits, maybe,” apparently the sound of Rodriguez striking Torres in the head with a metal bar. (As of the time of the trial in this case, Rodriguez had not been prosecuted for any involvement in the attack on Torres.) Defendant heard a person moaning in the yard. When she went outside, she found Torres lying on the ground with blood coming from a head wound. Defendant summoned her father, who took Torres to the hospital. Torres subsequently died from the blow to his head. Rodriguez told defendant he had taken $80 from Torres and had buried the murder weapon.
When questioned by a police detective, defendant essentially admitted the events summarized above but attributed her participation to her fear for her father's safety, based on Rodriguez's threats to harm him.
Defendant was charged by information with one count of violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). During the six-day jury trial, defendant testified in accordance with her earlier statement to police. The jury was instructed on felony murder with robbery as the predicate felony. The jury was instructed concerning the defense of duress. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. On January 19, 2010, the court sentenced defendant to prison for 25 years to life and imposed other fines and fees.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
On September 10, 2010, defendant's appointed appellate counsel filed a brief, as described above, raising no issues. The court, on the same date, notified defendant by mail of her right to submit to the court within 30 days any issues she wished to raise on the appeal. The court has received no response from defendant.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal. That review has disclosed the existence of no arguably meritorious legal or factual issues in this case. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
THE COURT
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: F059365
Decided: March 09, 2011
Court: Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)