Munoz

The ringing of three shots shattered the calm of Océano on a Sunday night, May 11, 1980. John Klima had been murdered. The shots had come from the interior of a 1955 blue Victoria Ford driven by 18-year-old Eduardo Ramirez. A jury determined defendant Edward Munoz was a passenger in the rear of that vehicle and was the person responsible for Klima’s tragic and senseless killing. Munoz was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187/189) 1 while personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5) and sentenced to prison for 27 years to life.

Munoz attacks the judgment entered on the jury verdict with a barrage of arguments. When those arguments were first made some of the issues raised were awaiting resolution in cases pending before the California Supreme Court. Those issues have since been resolved and this case has now been retransferred to us with directions to file a modified opinion with appropriate reference to People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 390 , 668 P.2d 697 ] and Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ]. Pursuant to those directions, and without further discussion, we reject Munoz’ argument the…

We are required by the Supreme Court directive (Feb. 2, 1984) to file a modified opinion with *1019 appropriate reference to People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 390 , 668 P.2d 697 ] and Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ]. The majority opinion has now complied and as to those portions of the majority opinion controlled by Dillon and Donaldson I concur. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450 [ 20 Cal.Rptr. 321 , 369 P.2d 937 ].)

I also concur with Justice Wiener’s conclusion no substantial evidence supports Munoz’ first degree—premeditated—murder conviction. But I dissent from the failure of the majority to comply with the mandate of Dillon (34 Cal.3d at pp. 477-489) and reduce the conviction to one of second degree murder. Moreover, the majority opinion, however, seeks to cover and the Supreme Court decision to not discuss that glaring void—lack of substantial evidence to support the “felony murder” conviction—with the unanalyzed conclusion that there was “uncontradicted evidence of felony murder.” (Majority opn., ante, at p. 1010.) A minute search of the record fails to disclose any…

I concur in the majority opinion in its entirety and even though I am satisfied the jury reached its verdict on the felony-murder rule believe there is sufficient evidence to support that conviction nonetheless on the theory of premeditated acts.

After the initial contact with Klima intended to hassle the victim, the party then drove away. Sometime after this, admittedly a short time later, Munoz told Ramirez to stop and back up. About this time, he obtained the gun from *1018 Salinas and, without provocation, shot his victim “for the hell of it.” He had some time in which to develop his thoughts about a killing when he told the driver to stop and backup. I believe that period of the thought process is enough to support a jury’s finding premeditated and a first degree murder conviction.

“Since the decision in People v. Sanchez (1864), 24 Cal. 17, 30 , it has been repeatedly declared that ‘There need be no appreciable space of time between the intention to kill and the act of killing; they may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind,’ but this is not the equivalent of saying that the intention to kill can be formed without being preceded by deliberation and…

The ringing of three shots shattered the calm of Oceano on a Sunday night, May 11, 1980. John Klima had been murdered. The shots had come from the interior of a 1955 blue Victoria Ford driven by 18-year-old Eduardo Ramirez. A jury determined defendant Edward Munoz was a passenger in the rear of that vehicle and was the person responsible for Klima's tragic and senseless killing. Munoz was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187/189) [1] while personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5) and sentenced to prison for 27 years to life.

Munoz attacks the judgment entered on the jury verdict with a barrage of arguments. When those arguments were first made some of the issues raised were awaiting resolution in cases pending before the California Supreme Court. Those issues have since been resolved and this case has now been retransferred to us with directions to file a modified opinion with appropriate reference to People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal.3d 441 [ 194 Cal. Rptr. 390 , 668 P.2d 697 ] and Donaldson v. Superior Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 24 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 704 , 672 P.2d 110 ]. Pursuant to those directions, and without further discussion, we reject Munoz'…