Reported / Citable
Background
Marcos Antonio Jimenez and Marco Antonio Ruiz were indicted in Santa Clara County for the 2016 murder of Humberto Salas, the attempted murder of his companion A.P., and conspiracy to commit robbery, with a robbery-murder special circumstance alleged. The prosecution relied largely on S.C., Jimenez's girlfriend and an admitted coconspirator, who described a plan to rob A.P. at a park. Salas was killed by a shotgun wound while Jimenez pointed his shotgun toward the front passenger seat. The jury convicted Jimenez on all counts, found the special circumstance true, and did not find the firearm enhancements true. He received life without parole (LWOP) for the murder, with concurrent terms on the other counts.
Before sentencing, Jimenez moved under the Racial Justice Act (Pen. Code, § 745) to dismiss the special circumstance, arguing Latinx defendants are charged with it more often. He relied on a report comparing the racial makeup of young adults serving LWOP in the county with the county's general population, plus an undefined sample of White defendants serving parole-eligible life terms. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice for lack of a prima facie showing and later denied a continuance first requested after that ruling. After the Supreme Court transferred the case for reconsideration in light of Assembly Bill No. 1071, which amended the Act, Jimenez also asked for a stay and limited remand.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed as to both defendants. In the published portion, it held de novo that Jimenez did not show a substantial likelihood of a violation of section 745(a)(3). It assumed he was charged with a more serious offense than some similarly situated White defendants, but found no showing that the prosecution more frequently sought or obtained a special circumstance against Latinx murder defendants than against similarly situated others. His data compared Latinx representation in the LWOP population with the general population, most of whom face no murder charge, and compared shares of the LWOP population rather than charging frequency among murder defendants. The White sample showed only that some such defendants received parole-eligible terms, without matching LWOP data for White defendants or any data for Latinx defendants. Assembly Bill No. 1071 left the like-for-like comparison intact.
The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance, because counsel gave no reason for waiting until after the merits ruling. It denied the stay and limited remand because Jimenez can pursue postjudgment habeas relief, including renewal with new evidence, and delay would hold up the remaining claims of both defendants. In the unpublished portions it rejected the other claims, including those on evidence, juror misconduct, instructions, and the constitutionality of LWOP. It found one error, a detective's secondary-evidence testimony about Ruiz's recorded words, but held it harmless.
Key Takeaways
- A section 745(a)(3) charging claim must compare how often the more serious charge is sought or obtained among similarly situated defendants who engaged in similar conduct, not a group's share of the general population.
- Showing that some defendants of another race received lesser outcomes does not show relative frequency without matching data for both groups on both outcomes.
- On direct appeal the court reviews only the record before the trial court, so later-acquired data must be presented through a new motion or habeas petition.
- The denial here was without prejudice, so Jimenez may renew the claim with new evidence under section 1473(e).
- Only the Racial Justice Act analysis was published; the opinion's other parts are not precedential.
Why It Matters
The published portion gives trial courts a concrete framework for statistical charging claims: define the similarly situated pool, such as murder defendants, then compare special-circumstance frequency across groups. It acknowledges the Legislature's low prima facie threshold and that statistics may suffice, but holds that overrepresentation alone does not satisfy the statute.
What remains open is substantial. The ruling rejects this record, not the theory, and the court called the claim plausible. Postjudgment RJA proceedings, with discovery, remain available. The opinion was certified for partial publication (excluding parts I.B and II.B through II.K) and modified on November 3, 2026 with no change in judgment and rehearing denied.