People v. Thomas CA2/1

Opinion

Filed 9/28/26 P. v. Thomas CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B342967

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA496656) v.

TERANCE TRACY THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Garcia, Judge. Affirmed with directions. Julia Caleca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Appellant Terance Tracy Thomas challenges his judgment of conviction for first degree murder, arguing the admission of gang evidence denied him a fair trial. He further argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to object to that evidence. Thomas has forfeited his evidentiary argument and has not established ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. In addition, we instruct the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

BACKGROUND A jury convicted Thomas of the first degree murder of Dmorreau Oglesby (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and found true the personal use of a firearm allegation. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The prosecution’s evidence at trial consisted primarily of surveillance video footage and the testimony of a gang expert. The defense presented no affirmative evidence.

A. Surveillance Footage Numerous surveillance cameras located inside and outside the 7-Eleven store where Oglesby was shot recorded the events before, during, and after the shooting. The prosecution played these video recordings for the jury. They depict the following: On June 17, 2021, Oglesby parks his white Nissan in the 7-Eleven parking lot. He is wearing a New York Yankees baseball cap. At 12:01 p.m., a blue Chevrolet Tahoe enters the parking lot. Two men exit. One is wearing a black T-shirt with the word “security” on the front and has a long, thick dreadlock hairstyle. Numerous distinctive tattoos on his face, neck, and right arm are 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 visible. The second man is wearing a white tank top and black pants. At trial, multiple law enforcement witnesses who had interacted with Thomas before the shooting identified him as the man wearing the security shirt, based in part on his distinctive tattoos and hairstyle. Thomas also conceded during closing arguments that he is the man wearing the security shirt in this footage. Witnesses identified the man in the tank top as Genuine Bedford, who lived with Thomas. The video footage goes on to depict Bedford approaching the front of Oglesby’s Nissan, in which Oglesby is still sitting, and Thomas pointing at it. A silver Mercedes enters the parking lot, and a man witnesses later identified as Christian Fernandez exits. Thomas walks to the rear of the Tahoe; Bedford and Fernandez join him. Thomas again points in the direction of Oglesby’s Nissan. Thomas and Bedford enter the Tahoe, and Fernandez returns to his Mercedes. At 12:05 p.m., Thomas, Bedford, and Fernandez arrive at Thomas and Bedford’s residence, located about 100 to 150 yards from the 7-Eleven. Thomas and Bedford enter the house while Fernandez remains outside. At 12:12 p.m., two men emerge from the house, one wearing a red shirt under a black hoodie, the other wearing a black hoodie. Multiple law enforcement witnesses identified the man in the red shirt and hoodie as Thomas and the man in the black hoodie as Bedford. The two men “huddle[ ] up” with Fernandez outside the house. Fernandez is wearing a ski mask on the top of his head. Oglesby exits his car around 12:20 p.m. and enters the 7-Eleven. Around this same time, Thomas, Bedford, and Fernandez are walking through an alleyway from the residence to 3 the 7-Eleven, and arrive at the 7-Eleven parking lot around 12:24 p.m. Thomas approaches the rear of Oglesby’s Nissan while Bedford approaches the front. Thomas then walks to the front door of the 7-Eleven, where Oglesby is exiting, and fires the first shot. Oglesby runs back into the store; Thomas follows him. Thomas racks the slide on the handgun twice, points it at Oglesby, and fires a second shot. Thomas is wearing gloves. At 12:25 p.m., Thomas exits the 7-Eleven, “running towards” the street, where he gets into the front passenger seat of the blue Tahoe, and it drives away. Fernandez gets into the driver’s seat of the silver Mercedes and drives away.

B. Gang Evidence 1. Pretrial Discussion of Gang Evidence Prior to trial, the People moved in limine for permission to offer gang evidence. At the hearing on the motion, the district attorney explained he wanted to offer “very limited gang evidence to explain why this shooting took place . . . I think maybe 10, 12 minutes, just establishing the territory, establishing who [is] who, and establishing the motive for the shooting and why an individual would shoot a complete stranger based on a baseball cap.” Defense counsel responded he was “familiar with [the district attorney’s] argument, we’ve discussed it, and I will submit on the court’s ruling.” The court granted the motion to offer gang evidence in the “very limited fashion” the district attorney had described. Defense counsel then reiterated that, “as long as it is in that limited fashion, then we’ll submit just that way.”

4 2. Gang-Related Testimony At trial, the People offered the gang expert testimony of Los Angeles Police Department Officer Albert Vazquez. Vazquez testified as follows: Thomas is a 59 Hoover gang member. Tattoos on Thomas’s body, including on his face, neck, and left arm, signal this gang affiliation. The 7-Eleven where the shooting occurred is within Hoover gang territory, and the Hoovers care about protecting their territory. Entering that territory while wearing a hat associated with a rival gang is a “huge sign” of disrespect, which the Hoovers view as warranting violent retaliation. As a means of cultivating respect, fear, and intimidation, Hoover gang members have committed acts of violence against people wearing clothing they believe signals a rival gang affiliation. For example, three years before Thomas’s trial, five Duce Hoover gang members entered rival Crip gang territory and killed a person because they believed he was a rival gang member based solely on his wearing a blue bandana. Two weeks before trial, Five Duce Hoover gang members again entered rival gang territory and shot at individuals because of what the individuals were wearing. A Hoover killing someone who appears to be a rival gang member enhances the Hoover’s reputation, even if the person wearing the rival gang clothing is not actually a gang member. The Crips gang is an enemy of the Hoovers gang. Many members of the Rolling Neighborhood Crips gang wear hats or clothing bearing the New York Yankees logo, and Yankees hats are associated with the Crips. In addition to Vazquez’s expert testimony, the investigating detective testified that he believed Oglesby was shot because 5 Oglesby was wearing a Yankees hat. The detective believed this because a Yankees hat is the symbol for a rival of the Hoovers gang and the shooting took place in Hoover territory. The detective further testified that Oglesby was not a gang member and did not know Thomas. During a search of Oglesby’s vehicle after the shooting, police found hats bearing the logos of other sports teams in the backseat, including two Pittsburgh Pirates hats, a Philadelphia Phillies hat, a Toronto Blue Jays hat, and two Boston Red Sox hats.

3. Limiting Instruction The court instructed the jury that gang evidence could be considered only for the limited purpose of deciding whether Thomas “had a motive to commit the crime charged.” The instruction further stated, “You may not consider this evidence for any other purpose. You may not conclude from this evidence that the defendant is a person of bad character or that he has a disposition to commit crime.”

DISCUSSION Thomas timely appealed his judgment of conviction. As we explain below, Thomas has not identified reversible error. We agree with both parties, however, that a clerical error in the abstract of judgment must be corrected.

A. Failure To Object Forfeited Thomas’s Gang Evidence Argument and Does Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance Thomas argues that there was “insufficient evidence that the shooting involved a gang-related motive,” and the “admission of gang evidence to prove motive was [therefore] error.” According to Thomas, admission of this irrelevant 6 evidence could only support impermissible inferences, violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial, and warrants reversal. But by failing to object—either to the motion in limine ruling or as the evidence was presented during trial2—Thomas forfeited his gang evidence argument. (See People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 434; see People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 778–779.) Thomas urges us to nevertheless consider the argument because it implicates an important issue of constitutional law (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887, fn. 7) and/or presents a “clear and obvious” error that affects the overall fairness of the proceeding. (People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 963.) We disagree with these characterizations and decline to address the forfeited issue. Thomas further argues we should consider his forfeited argument, because his counsel’s failure to object constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective assistance, Thomas must show (1) his attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) a reasonable probability that the result would have been different, absent this deficiency. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687–696 (Strickland); People v. Lewis (1990) 50 Cal.3d 262, 288.)

2 If the prosecution had offered more than the limited gang evidence defense counsel agreed to at the motion in limine hearing, Thomas may have preserved an argument for appeal by objecting on that basis during trial. He did not so object, however. Nor does our review of the record suggest that the gang evidence at trial exceeded that the court’s pretrial ruling authorized.

7 Were we to reach the first prong of the Strickland analysis, it is highly likely we would conclude the gang evidence was admissible, and that counsel thus acted reasonably in not objecting thereto. We do not reach the issue, however, given the guidance of our Supreme Court that, “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, . . . that course should be followed.” (Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 697.) Such is the case here. The reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome necessary to establish prejudice is “ ‘a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” (People v. Fairbank (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1223, 1241.) At trial, the prosecution played a video depicting a man multiple witnesses identified as Thomas shooting the victim. Thomas cites no evidence impeaching these witnesses or otherwise contradicting the video account of events. Thomas instead argues it is reasonably probable the jury would not have believed this uncontradicted, unimpeached testimony and video footage if the jury had not known Thomas is a Hoover gang member and that Hoover gang members are willing to kill based solely on rival gang clothing. We disagree. The evidence that Thomas was the shooter—whatever his motive—was strong. Moreover, we “presume the jury understood and followed the instruction” to not consider the gang evidence for any purpose other than motive. (People v. Homick (2012) 55 Cal.4th 816, 873; accord, People v. Hall (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1077, 1098 [“outside of the confrontation clause context, we continue to assume that the jury follows its instructions”].) Accordingly, regardless of whether a reasonably competent attorney would have objected to the gang evidence—an issue we are not 8 deciding—any such failure to object was not prejudicial and cannot support Thomas’s ineffective assistance claim.

B. A Clerical Error in the Abstract of Judgment Must Be Corrected The People note that the first page of the abstract of judgment incorrectly lists “2001” as the year Thomas committed the murder underlying the judgment. In fact, the shooting occurred in 2021. Both parties ask that we amend the abstract of judgment to correct this. We agree that this date is a clerical error and instruct the court to correct it. (See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185, 188 [when there is a clerical error in the abstract of judgment, “the appellate court itself should order the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment”].)

9 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is instructed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that Thomas committed the murder in 2021, rather than 2001, and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. We concur:

WEINGART, J.

M. KIM, J.