People v. Reyes CA4/2

facts, a statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the

court erred in finding defendant ineligible for section 1170.95 relief. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 23, 2001, defendant, Francisco Rojas, and a third man, who was not

apprehended, entered a massage parlor. “[D]efendant pulled out a gun and used it to

direct employees and a patron into the employee break room. In the process, defendant

shot a female employee in the hip.” (People v. Reyes, supra, E035995.)

“Larry Cortez, the massage parlor security guard, testified in pertinent part that he

came out of his office at the massage parlor and encountered defendant and another man

in a hallway. Defendant was holding a gun to the head of a female employee. Cortez

pulled his gun, ducked behind a door, and directed the two men to drop their weapons.

Cortez testified that both men fired a total of six or seven rounds at him from small

caliber handguns. Both men then charged Cortez, while continuing to fire their weapons.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 On the court’s own motion, we take judicial…