SENTENCING: TikTok Star Murder Trial — CA v. Ali Abulaban

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:00:30] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:02:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [00:03:00] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:04:29] Speaker 2: Thank you. [00:04:59] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. ... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:32:05] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:32:35] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [00:33:35] Speaker 3: Thank you. There are two things that we need kind of in order, so I want to make sure that we can do that. Mr. Aboulaban, you have the right to appeal the judgment of this court. That must be filed within 60 days in this court and not the court of appeal. Do you understand that? Yes. Thank you. [00:34:20] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. [00:34:20] Speaker 3: A couple things before we begin. We have a new trial motion, which we will do first. So I will start with the defense. You're up. Thank you. [00:34:33] Speaker ?: Good morning, Your Honor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:34:33] Joseph Green: Good morning, Your Honor. Joseph Green. I have a new public defender on behalf of Mr. Boulaban. Your Honor, we did file a motion for a new trial pending what was the verdict in this case. This was something that we had addressed with the court and counsel during trial as it happened right after – or right during, I should say, Mr. Boulaban's testimony. The court at that time asked us to return the following day with a transcript from Mr. Brian Edwards' phone calls to his family members, which was the subject of the question of oral conduct by the prosecutor that we believe rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. When we returned the next day, we provided a transcript to the court. The court had an opportunity to review it. At that time, the court offered a remedy which the defense did not believe was proper and fully addressed the issue. The remedy offered by the court was to instruct the jury that they could disregard or they should disregard that line of questioning as well as the answer provided by Mr. Boulaban. The defense elected instead of that remedy that we felt was not proper and didn't fully address the issue to argue it to the jury. Under closing argument, the court instructed counsel that it had reviewed the transcripts again, agreeing now with defense that that question should not have been asked by Madam Prosecutor. But since it was post-closing, the court reiterated its earlier argument that it didn't think that it rose to any sort of level of error in the sense that Mr. Boulaban had been on the stand for three days and it came towards the end of his testimony and that ultimately it wouldn't impact given the length of the testimony. The defense disagrees. We filed this motion asking the court to reconsider and to allow a new trial in the matter. So, we know that we are, given all the arguments laid out specifically in our papers. We would just like to point out that in a case, in any criminal case, an elevated standard of conduct applies to the prosecution. They have a duty not to just get a conviction, but actually to make sure that truth and justice are done. In this case, we know that a question was posed to Mr. Boulaban that was not going to be substantiated. The prosecution did not have Mr. Brian Edwards as a witness. The prosecution did not have a transcript of these phone calls where the prosecution was alleging that Mr. Boulaban had bragged to inmates about having killed his wife and her friend. This was simply a line of questioning where the prosecution had no ability to prove what they were asking Mr. Boulaban. And instead, the jury was left with the impression that, as the prosecutor stood up with a giant binder full of questions that she was marking off, the jury is left with the impression that this is yet again another situation where Mr. Boulaban cannot be believed. But the defense has left hamstrung and not able to really rehabilitate in that moment because Mr. Edwards is not here as a witness. Mr. Edwards tests her phone calls were not transcribed to provide to the jury. Ms. Brast told us at the time that this was raised during the trial and again in her moving papers that she reads the transcripts of Mr. Brian Edwards' phone calls very differently than I think the plain language of those phone calls, which in our review of those phone calls and the transcripts, it is clear that Mr. Edwards did not ever have a conversation with Mr. Boulaban about this case. They were separate. Mr. Boulaban was in the hole. Mr. Edwards was in the hole. There was no communication. There was nothing in these phone calls to substantiate that there was ever conversation between the two. If the prosecution really believed that that was the case, they would have brought Brian Edwards in. They would have had those transcripts. They would have done things to be able to fully substantiate and that's where the issue lies, is that they asked questions that they could not substantiate. A sort of idea that this was done accidentally or with misremembering what the transcript says, it really is not the question. This does not have to involve any sort of ill intent or ill will on behalf of the prosecutor because they are held to a different higher standard than other lawyers in court. And so we are asking the court for all of those reasons to order a new trial. Although the court did offer a remedy, we do not believe it was a proper remedy that would fully remedy the situation in front of the jury. The damage had been done. That bell could not be unrung. The only way to properly fix that was to instruct the jury that the prosecutor had committed prosecutorial misconduct and that that was something that they could consider in the totality of the case as they evaluated it and separate it. Thank you. [00:39:53] Speaker 5: All right, and the prosecutor. Thank you, Your Honor. There was no misdirector or error in this case and the defense has not cited any legal authority showing that the two questions that I asked the defendant on cross-examination require a new trial in this case. And the two questions I asked were based on discovery jail calls that had been out since March of 2023. The defense was fully aware of these calls as was the defendant. There were multiple statements made by Brian Edwards on these jail calls to his sister and to his wife indicating that Mr. Edwards had a lot of information about the defendant that could only have come from the defendant. Mr. Edwards knew generally what the defendant looked like. He knew that he was involved with tick tock. He knew the defendant's defense in this case as a heat of passion defense. That is not common knowledge. That was not knowledge that was brought forward at an arraignment or in a preliminary hearing or anywhere in court. That was the defendant's defense that we heard during this trial. The defendant had talked in similar jail calls to his parents about his heat and passion defense, about raising that defense so that would allow him to get out earlier. He told Mr. Edwards and our inmates at jail about this defense, which is how Mr. Edwards knew about it and why he was relaying that the defendant had to prove that he killed his bitch and the other woman or the other man in the heat of the rage and that's what would get him only five years per victim. Mr. Edwards had a lot of very specific information about the defendants, not only his defense of heat of passion, but also details about the killings. It was very apparent to me in reading the transcripts and listening to those calls that the defendant provided this information. There was one particular quote from Mr. Edwards. First of all, Mr. Edwards was arguing to his wife that, oh, his wife and the other man were inside his house, meaning the defendant's house, as if that was some kind of excuse or justification for killing. Mr. Edwards relayed to his wife that the defendant's wife and the other man were doing drugs inside the apartment. That is not public knowledge. That is not even the truth. That is information that besides SDPD knowing about a potential bag of cocaine, presumably at the scene, the only other person that had information about drugs at the crime scene was the defendant. Not Mr. Edwards, not anything Mr. Edwards heard on TV or read in the newspaper. That was nowhere in any of the media. So the information that Mr. Edwards had about any potential drugs at the scene came from the defendant. The defendant is the only person that had that information. So to say that Mr. Edwards and the defendant never had a conversation, that is not apparent to me. That is still not apparent in those calls. Mr. Edwards never said in either of those jail calls that he had never met the defendant during his whole time in jail. Mr. Edwards never said, I have never spoken to the TikTok killer or the defendant at any point in time in jail. All he said during those calls was that the defendant was in the hole that month. So maybe he didn't have a conversation with the defendant that month. But there is nothing in those calls that indicates that the defendant had never had a conversation with Mr. Edwards. So based on all the information contained in the calls, I certainly had a firm belief that the defendant provided that information. And when the defendant is testifying in a first re-murder case and has a heat of passion offense and is testifying that he felt either badly about what he did, that he was sorry, or that he didn't mean to do it, he testified that he didn't even realize he shot Anna. When the defendant is making all those statements during his testimony, it is certainly relevant for the prosecutor to ask him questions on cross-examination that go towards his lack of remorse. And the fact that he was bragging to inmates, making statements to inmates about killing Anna and Ray or killing his bitch and the man she was cheating with, the kinds of statements that I heard in those jail calls, it is certainly very relevant for me to ask those questions on cross-examination. Because that shows that the defendant did not have remorse for what he did. It wasn't in the heat of the moment. It was planned and then he was bragging to inmates about it. I limited my inquiry to two questions and then I moved on. I didn't argue it further. I didn't even argue it in closing. Mr. Edwards was in jail for a murder case as well. I'm not going to bring in another suspected murderer to testify in a case where there's overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. The prosecution can elect what witnesses it will call or not. And that's what I did in this case. The defendant, his response was certainly showing consciousness of guilt. When I asked him, did you ever brag to Mr. Edwards? His response should have just been no. If he really never had a conversation with Brian Edwards or any inmate in jail about the killings, his response would have just been no. That was not his response. He had an outburst. He told me, is this some kind of jail informant that you're asking me about? That shows his guilt in the fact that he knows he made these statements to inmates in jail. And so it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask those questions. [00:45:30] Speaker 3: Yeah. All right. Let me make something clear right now. If there's any disturbance, you will be put outside. All right. That happens only once. It's happened now. It will not happen again. And that [00:45:46] Speaker 5: includes you, Mr. Balamon. I don't want to thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. The defense cited numerous cases in their brief without the facts. And those facts are not the same scenario here. The defendant cited just very briefly the case of People versus Centeno, a case where the prosecutor argued to the jury a misleading standard of proof in the case. That did not happen here. I never argued an improper standard of proof. The defense cited People versus Force, a case where the prosecutor made a comment to the defense attorney that, oh, I may charge a client with perjury if he testifies inconsistently. So the defendant in that case did not testify during that trial. That did not happen here. I didn't raise any perjury charges. The defendant was able to testify fully for three days showing his side of the story. So the factual scenarios in those cases cited by the defense in their moving papers are completely different than the factual situation here. The other cases cited were People versus Fasaro and People versus Jasso. Those cases were not overturned. New trials were not granted in those cases. The court may have found misconduct for arguments by the prosecutor. However, it was harmless error and those cases were not overturned. The people in my movie papers, I cited People versus Watkins. That is a case with a very similar factual scenario to this one. In that case, the prosecutor asked the defendant on cross-examination a question about him laughing and carrying on outside the presence of the jury. That question was objected to. It was sustained. However, the court ruled in that case, there was no misconduct based on the prosecutor having a good faith belief in asking a question that explores the remorse of a defendant for a killing. And that is similar to what happened here. I was asking questions to explore the defendant's remorse and the fact that this was not a heat of passion case, that it was a planned killing. So there was no misconduct in this case. I know the defense brought up that the court also committed error. That was not the case here. If the court doesn't believe that there is misconduct, which there was not here, then the court is not required to instruct the jury that there was misconduct. So the court did not commit error in that sense. The court did offer a remedy to the defense, which was striking the questions and the answers. And the defense chose strategically not to do that because the defense wanted to be able to ask Mr. Boulevard further questions on redirect and to be able to argue things in closing, which is what she did. And so the defense can now not come in here and say that there was not a proper remedy by the court when she chose not to take that. The court also has to find that there would be prejudice to the defendant or that there would be a more favorable outcome if those questions had not been asked. And neither of those exist here. There was no prejudice in asking the defendant two questions that he was able to explain on his own and the jury is left to either believe him or not believe him. That is true of all of the questions asked of him and his testimony in general. There would not have been a more favorable outcome here. This is a case where there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt. And that was shown through his testimony, through the crime scene, through his admissions, through video evidence, through audio evidence, through evidence in his vehicle, social media. There was an abundant amount of evidence proving the defendant's guilt. And so one or two questions asked of him across examination that does not prejudice him. He certainly received a fair trial of this case. He was able to fully testify and tell this side of the story and would not have been a more favorable outcome. What I also attached to my opposition was a declaration from District Attorney Investigator Elliot Schaefer. That's S-H-A-F-F-E-R. And in that declaration, Mr. Schaefer reiterated the comments made by the jury foreperson after the verdicts. And the jury foreperson indicated that the jury looked at all of the evidence in this case and they based their verdicts on the defendant's actions and all of the evidence, not on his words on the stand. And so it was certainly evident to the jury that there was not a single question and answer that would have swayed them into changing their verdicts. And so I would argue that there was no misconduct either by the prosecutor or by the court and that the court should deny the motion for a new trial and pursue a sentencing. Thank you. [00:50:37] Joseph Green: May I just quickly just... Sure. Just to the last point the prosecution made about Mr. Schaefer having overheard something that a jury foreperson said. I wasn't present, but I do know that Fox 5 News was present. And there was a quote, not just something that they overheard, but a direct quote by the jury foreperson. And it was more complete than what Mr. Schaefer reported in his declaration, which was that immediately after the verdict, the foreperson explained that they made their decision based on Mr. Gouliband's actions on the stand when he was testifying, not his words. And so I think what Ms. Brast is missing the point up here is that Mr. Gouliband was put in a position where he had to deny accusations that simply were not true. And when Ms. Brast is standing up with very thorough notes for her cross-examination, and I can't express enough to the court sort of the optics of it, as Ms. Brast has a giant binder that she's checking off question by question by question. And what's left in the juror's mind is an impression that she somehow has information that would exactly corroborate everything that she's asking of Mr. Gouliband, but yet here he is up on the stand denying and lying to them, which is exactly what the jury is asked to do when a defendant testifies. We all know that that jury was absolutely salivating, waiting for Mr. Gouliband to take the stand, to hear what he had to say. And it wasn't a matter of, as we know, what he said, but how he said it. Ms. Brast put Mr. Gouliband in a position where he was forced to deny something that frankly is just not true. And they had no evidence to corroborate it. They had no evidence to bring in to show the jury that what they were in fact asking was true. I don't know if Ms. Brast is unfamiliar with the way a jail works, but they have televisions. They have access to news. They have talked to each other. And this case, as we can see in this courtroom right now, was all over the news in October when it happened. The news was constantly speculating about who was involved and what the facts were and what sort of defense this individual may have. Heat of passion is a very common, well-known defense when someone is charged with the murder of their spouse. So just because Mr. Edwards has some sort of knowledge that this might be a heat of passion case and it involves Mr. Gouliband, a TikTok star, the media is constantly plastering this all over local news that jail inmates have access to. There is still no credible proof that exists in the transcript of these calls that Mr. Brian Edwards had a conversation with Mr. Gouliband. And if the prosecution thought that was true, when they got these jail calls, they most certainly could have sent an investigator to ask Mr. Edwards about that. But they didn't. And they didn't for good reason because it simply is not true. And what we have here is a situation where Mr. Gouliband was prejudiced. And we can see that from the jury foreperson's quote to Fox 5 News that it was not a decision based on his words, but his actions on the stand. Ms. Brass was trying to get a rise out of him. She succeeded by asking him an unsubstantiated question that she simply could not prove. The court offered a remedy that was insufficient to fully address the prejudice and harm already caused to Mr. Gouliband. And based on that, we're asking the court to grant the motion for a new trial. [00:54:21] Speaker 3: All right. A few things. Let's kind of understand what we're talking about here. First of all, I have reread the transcripts. The transcripts speak for themselves. I, to a certain extent, I will adopt my earlier comments on this, quite frankly, when there was a motion for a mistrial. There's a few things that we need to talk about here. The first thing is, was there misconduct? That is judged by an objective standard. And here we have a situation where, obviously, the prosecutor asked a question that, in her mind, which I will accept, she believes was in good faith. It really wasn't answered. Everything kind of stopped at that point. But the question is, is this in and of itself misconduct? And, as I've said earlier, the question should not have been asked. But, we have to analyze, well, was this objectively misconduct? And, again, I would, based on looking at other cases involving prosecutorial misconduct, no. It doesn't amount to that standard. Again, it was not a very smart thing to say. But, again, you ask that. Is it misconduct? No. But, moving on, this is more important. Did the defendant suffer prejudice? And the answer to that is, absolutely not. Even if there was misconduct. So, we're even assuming that there is prosecutorial misconduct. The question was, whether or not these two questions contributed to the verdict. And the answer to that is, no, not at all. And I think what you have to do is look at the totality of the circumstances. And if you do that, you'll see that the questions themselves, the attorneys, by themselves, not just didn't have impact on the verdict, were fairly insignificant, were insignificant. Also, we tell the jurors, over and over again, that the attorney's questions are not evidence. There's a question. It's not evidence. And we, of course, presume that the jurors follow the law. The court did offer various remedies. The defense made certain tactical calls. And here we are today. But the bottom line here is, I don't know what the jury foreperson said about the defendant's actions on the stand. But there's no question that, if you look again at the totality of the evidence, of which we will outline in a few, that's what the jury is looking at. Yes, I would agree with counsel, and I have a quote here, that his state of mind and intent were at issue. Of course they were. There's no question about that. But when we look at the defendant's state of mind, we're just not looking about what he says on the stand. We're looking at all of the circumstantial evidence that shows his state of mind. And that's what the jury did. And the jury came up with their verdict. They basically had the choice of whether or not this was a willful, deliberate, and premeditated, for lack of a better word, a cold-blooded murder, or whether or not this was heat of passion, which is basically a lapse in judgment under extreme circumstances. The defendant was on the stand for three days. I've been doing this a long time. This is probably my 37th year. I have never seen anybody on the stand for three days. So the jury had an extraordinary amount of time to evaluate the defendant's credibility. And the idea that it would come down to, again, two insignificant questions is just not, it's not reasonable. So based on the two prongs of was this misconduct? No. And again, was there prejudice? No. Moving on to whether or not this court made an error in refusing to, uh, in refusing to either grant the mistrial or finding some other, uh, remedy, for lack of a better word. Um, I would, I had suggested at the time that we simply strike it, because again, the jurors are presumed to follow the law. And it's been my experience that they do. Uh, I gave the defense the options to this because I think that's only fair and for certain tactical reasons they elected their remedy. Uh, obviously they don't like if the verdict the way it came back, but elections have to be made. So based on all of this, then the defense motion for a mistrial is denied. All right. So now we will go on to, um, um, Madam Prosecutor. I let, I have the prosecution go first because I always give the defendant the last word. [00:59:59] Speaker 5: Uh, thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. First off, I'd like to start with the victim impact statements. There are several members of the family present here in court today, um, and some family also of Microsoft Teams who would like to make impact statements. I would just let the court know, I, I did submit, uh, a numerous victim impact statements from both, uh, friends and family, both Anna and Ray. I know the court has had an opportunity to read those. Uh, many of those members are here in court today. Um, not everyone will give their impact statement again, but there are some family members that would like to, and I will just, uh, go in order. [01:00:42] Speaker 3: Can you just, can you just make sure to say your first and last name and spell both for the way? [01:00:50] Speaker 6: No, not nothing. I guess I can't see sometimes. Ma'am, I'm sorry. [01:01:05] Speaker 1: Ma'am, see if you'll escape your first, uh, your first and last name and spell both of those names for the record? [01:01:11] Speaker 6: Yeah, Hermes Sarton? Uh, your honor. Sorry. Ma'am. I'm sorry. What did you, what did you, what my mom did to you? What I did to you? My mom did you hard. Sorry. Sorry, your honor. What did this did to you? You didn't do anything to you. Yeah, you know, you know, you know, Anna Marie. Now, you, it's not going to go cheap. All right. If you didn't cheat first. [01:02:00] Speaker 3: All right. Ma'am, if you're not going to be able to control yourself. Sorry, your honor, but this, this feeling is like, make me sick. [01:02:15] Speaker 6: Your honor, my name is Hermes Sarton. And I want to share, share the report that the devastating impact, the loss of my sister, Anna Marie, has had on our lives. My sister was a gentle, loving, sweet, young woman, who absence has left a holding in my heart that can never be filled. This man has taken her life and also shattered the hearts and lives of so many loved Anna Marie. Anna Marie was not only my sister, but also one of my best friends. Our childhood was filled with laughter, love, and countless moments of joy. My favorite memories with my sister were of us growing up together. Her beautiful smile and laughter always made us happy. As we grew up, I can remember so many fun times when our family would get together, because her presence, her presence was, I can remember so many, so fun times when our family would get together, because our presence was always so uplifting. She always thought of others first before she would take care of herself. She was always very uplifting to those around her. She had such a gentle spirit, a kind, and could easily find joy in the simplest of things. She brought joy and happiness to all those around her. And until now, I still have a hard time knowing my sister is gone. No more calls, birthdays, Christmas, and Mother's Day, texts, and calls for her. Looking at my sister's pictures and videos with her is now just a distant memory. Ali didn't take peace, peace of her heart, but also beautiful soul, inside and out. My sister was the most loving, patient, gentle, and forgiving person. And this person took her away from us. He was the one who was supposed to protect his wife and the child, but instead, he made them scared and even terrified of him. Throughout the trial, he pretended to be surprised that Anna Marie wanted to leave him. As you can see, my sister tried so hard to forgive him, and having so many chances, and covered all his abuse and lies. She did not even tell me about the abuse just to protect him. But he took advantage of her and kept abusing her anyways. But he leave at our families when he leave at the family house, and also on the phone, he talked like that angel and promised he would never get hurt my sister. And Ali, if I had known what my sister had been through with all that abuse, if I had known, if I had known, I would have flown again to see her and do my best to take her and Amira away from you. You didn't take away my sister's life, but also my niece's future. Because of your selfishness, the damage you have caused, impossible to measure. And my parents trusted you when you brought Anna Marie and Amira from the Philippines to the States. You promised my mom that you would take good care of them, as my parents did for Anna Marie and Amira back in the Philippines. But I had no idea that my sister's life would be miserable living with you. Treated my sister like she didn't matter, but she mattered. We loved and miss her so much. My sister wanted the best for you and Ann Marie, but you messed up, Ali. And you messed up. The person who said good things about you was my sister. I can imagine how this evil act has changed all of our lives, especially Amira's life. Amira lost the two people that were supposed to love and care for her, especially her favorite person and lovely mother who took that away from Amira. But all of the people you killed had a beautiful life ahead. Many people loved and cared for both of them. You ruined so many people's lives because of your selfish action. You were the one who messed up and now you're trying to make people believe you're a victim in this case. I knew when I first met you in the Philippines that you weren't a good fit for my sister. After you disrespected my mother in front of me, and I should have followed my instinct. Only you know how many years my sister suffered from your hands. But she still tried to stay and love you, hoping that you will change. I told you before that if you didn't want her, you could have brought my sister back to us. You could have brought my sister back and Amira back to us. But you made a choice. You made a choice. I am not realizing why she was afraid to visit us, even though we were just like few hours away. It is because you were controlling her and Amira, so they couldn't tell how evil you were. Anna and Amira were planning to visit us in December 2021 for family gathering. But you didn't give my sister help that chance. Nobody deserved to be treated like you treated my sister. You ruined her life, you mocked her, you disrespected her, you abused her, you controlled her, and then you killed her. You killed the only person who gave for you and loved you. In your honor, the loss of Anna Marie is an imaginable tragedy for our family. Her death has left us all heartbroken in family gathering, feel empty without her laughter and her presence. Her daughter, Amira, had lost a loving and nurturing mother, and we lost a sister, a daughter, and a friend. The pain of her absence is the constant reminder of emptiness that you can never be filled. We wake up every day wishing that this nightmare was just a bad dream, but the reality that we are forced now to live without her. The trauma of losing my sister in such a horrific is something we will carry with us forever. No sentence can ever bring my sister back to us, but we hope that justice will be served, and that the person responsible for the highest crime will be held accountable. We hope that through this statement, you can understand the death of our loss and lasting impact it has had on our lives. For me, the death penalty is what this man deserves. He has no more place on this earth, but I will agree with what my parents say, a life sentence without parole. Thank you for allowing our family to have a voice and for considering the profound impact this loss has had on our family. [01:10:26] Speaker 5: And now she's going to read a statement from Anna's mother, Amalia Miller, A-M-A-L-I-A. [01:10:49] Speaker 6: Your Honor, hello, I am Amalia Miller, the mother of Anna Maria Abu-Aban, the wife of Ali Abu-Aban. I cannot fully comprehend why Ali would kill my daughter. The pain. Where am I? The pain is unbearable and I cannot accept what happened to her. As her mother, I knew my daughter well. She was a kind and loving child who never caused me any trouble. She was a caring parent, a thoughtful sister, and always cheerful and playful. Her loss is incredibly painful. Painful for me as a mother, the impact of what happened has left me devastated. I cannot sleep when I think about her. My only prayer now is for justice to be served for my daughter and for the person responsible to be punished. We ask for justice and for life, sentence without parole. For Ali Abu-Aban, only then will I and my family my family find some peace of mind. It is also painful for me to know that my granddaughter would grow up without her mother. Every time I remember, I cannot help but cry. And I have lost my appetite. My prayers are my only source of strength. And I pray for the end of this morning for my daughter. I love her dearly, and the pain is overwhelming. I pray for the strength to cope with this agony. I rely on the Lord to help me end this pain and longing as does my family. I am grateful for the answer prayers, and I hope my plea for Ali Abu-Aban punishment, life imprisonment without the possibility of release, will be heard. I trust that you will listen to my requests sincerely, Molly O. Miller. [01:13:13] Speaker 5: Thanks. Okay, next it will be Maria Cardenas. She would like me to read her statement. "My son, Ray, was a good man, hardworking, noble, without malice. A good son, brother, grandson, uncle, nephew, and friend. Full of light, with a whole life ahead of him, that had so much to live still. I, as a mother, ask of you to be just and give Ali Abu-Aban a sentence of life in prison for taking the life of my son and his friend Anna in such a cruel and coward way. For him to pay the unbearable damages that he has caused us. Please free us from suffering this agony and despair and give us full and legitimate justice that our soul, mind, and broken hearts from such pain lead. The loss of my son has left unimaginable pain and a huge hole in my heart and soul. Your honor, we thank you for your attention. Okay, next we're Diana Barrett. [01:14:55] Speaker 7: My name is Diana Barrett. I'm Rayburn. What's my brother? I address this court to you to express how the crime committed by the defendant has affected not only me, but all the family members and friends. He had a beautiful soul, and this is why I know he is resting in peace. But losing him has left me feeling empty and a lot of emotional damage. I lost my baby brother, my baby brother, and my best friend. The way he had to leave this earth is not something that he deserved. He was a kind, loving person. He deserved a chance in this life. He always wanted to be a father and have a family and live a happy life. And all of that was robbed from him. What the defendant has done with this horrible crime has destroyed our family. Our holidays will never be the same because we are missing a big part of it. This grief and sadness will never be the same because we are missing a big part of it. Because we are never going to be able to hug our brother on Christmas, on New Year's, or on his birthday. I know how much he loved being, he loved being with all of his family on all holidays. He never missed a family gathering. So I'm here today to ask for justice for my brother Ray, for Anna, and for my mom. Who has to suffer the rest of her life knowing that her youngest son and her baby was taken from her in such a violent way. And that is something that no mother should ever have to go through. The defendant deserves to pay for this horrible crime with the highest sentence possible. He has destroyed many lives and victims to serve justice. Thank you, Your Honor. [01:17:05] Speaker 2: Thank you. [01:17:08] Speaker 5: Elizabeth Barrett, you guys. [01:17:19] Speaker 8: Your Honor, my name is Elizabeth Barrett, and Ray Barrett Barrett was my baby brother. Even though Ray was the youngest of the five of us, he was very responsible and mature mature from a young age. A true gentleman, always respectful. He was the most loving and kind person to everyone, family, friends, partners, even strangers, no matter the age. He loved to spend time with family and friends. Even if he could not be there in person, he would take time to reach out by call or message. In every family event, he would go around and have a moment with each and every one of us, from the oldest to the youngest. His motto was family comes first. He was a peacemaker, always bringing us together. He was loved by many people and he touched the hearts of everyone that had the privilege of meeting him. There was not an animal, always trying to help others, even animals, we were not allowed to keep up even a spider in his presence. He would kindly just remove it from our home and safely take it outside back to nature. Many of us suffer domestic violence or traumas in our lives, but we choose to be different, to be better. Ray did. He was a great son, brother, cousin, nephew, grandson, friend. And he would have been a great husband and father had the opportunity to not be taken away from him. We appreciate and thank all the hard work that the DA team did and the jury for the fair verdict decision that they made. It has taken every strength left in us to be present at court for almost a month and hear and see things that will forever hurt our minds and hearts. But we feel so important to show our support for everyone that has been hurt with this horrible crime and see that justice is served. We often are told that we are such a strong family for surviving such tragedy. But the reality is that this has been the most difficult event we have ever experienced and many of us are left broken. The pain and trauma of losing our brother the way we did is so painful that we have difficulty living a normal and healthy life. Some of us are struggling with depression, anxiety, panic attacks, nightmares and more. It has been almost three years since our loved ones were taken away from us and we have not been able to have closure waiting for this trial. Just when we feel it's possible to move on and have peace of mind after the verdict, we hear about the intentions of the defendant to ask for even more time in a new trial. Ali Abulabah not only took the rights of two good people, but he also took part of everyone's life that knew Ray and Anna. He did not give Ray or Anna any time to defend themselves or a chance to continue their lives. He does not deserve any more consideration or compassion. That's why we ask with all our hearts that you consider our pain and suffering and deny any further requests from him. Please give us all the justice we deserve so we can finally start healing and find peace in our hearts. Thank you, Mr. Marks. [01:20:46] Speaker 5: And next will be Sylvia Barron. [01:20:52] Speaker 1: Good morning, Your Honor. [01:21:00] Speaker 9: My name is Sylvia Barron. I am Ray's Ant. And I say I am Ray's Ant because I chose not to see him when he passed to the other life. Because I don't want to remember him that way. I remember him for the kind, loving, good man that he was to everyone. My brother Oswaldo was Ray's dad. Dad is a term that Ali Abulaban will never be referred to, who will be referred by. The tragedy that he has brought into our lives cannot be described no matter how hard I try. The pain and suffering of others is something that you have absolutely no clue about, Ali Abulaban. You are the only one that matters. I understand they are preparing you for life in prison. And I ask myself, who prepared any of us that loved Ray so much to live life without him? From the moment I received the call from my niece, Elizabeth, Ray's sister, I refused to accept the reality of what I was hearing. It just did not make sense. And I kept thinking, this only happens in movies, happens in maybe in other people's lives, not in ours. Suddenly, all I could think about was my dear sister-in-law, Lupita, Ray's mother. How was I going to face her as a mother myself? How could any of us mothers know, except that we lose a child in such a way that is making no sense? No one will ever grieve more the loss of a child than a mother. Just a few months before, Ray, along with all of his cousins and brothers, spearheaded a Mother's Day celebration for their grandmother, my mother who is now 91 years old, who to this day believes that Ray died of a heart attack, because we have to keep it away from her, the horrible, horrible murder that he died by. I couldn't make myself, like I said, see him in his coffin. I will hang on to that sweet image of him making over his mother, his grandmother. He was the perfect nephew, the perfect brother, the perfect citizen. He was a great man, something you will ever, ever know what it's about. How many victims did your cowardice leave behind? Let's start with your own family, the disgrace of being related to a criminal that will hopefully rot in jail. Your mother will see you die day by day in prison. You won't be dead like Ray, but you will also not be living. And then there's Amira, poor child, not even your own daughter, now an orphan, matter to you. And let's not forget Anna's mother and sister and all of the family who also loves a granddaughter, a niece. And then there are all the wonderful friends that Ray and Anna had. Your sick narcissism cut short two beautiful eyes at their prime and left a devastation of broken hearts on Ray's and Anna's side, and your side as well. And I hope that you will get the maximum sentence, which you deserve. You deserve no better. Thank you, Your Honor. [01:24:52] Speaker 3: Thank you, ma'am. [01:24:57] Speaker 5: All right, there should be one more speaker, and let me make sure he's on the teams. [01:25:03] Speaker 3: All right, while you're doing that, to the victim's family, there's something that I like to point out in these circumstances, because it's often not understood. Can you speak ahead of the mic? Sure. The sentence pronounced today does not reflect the value of your loved ones, the value of human life. It can't do that. And I want to emphasize that, that the sentence today does not reflect your love for them or their value as human beings. It's society's only way to punish people who have done wrong, but it obviously cannot restore their lives. The only thing this court can do, and society in general, is to take away his freedom. But that's it. And I just want to point that out, because oftentimes, people think that the sentence that is handed down is a reflection of either the crime or the person who is now deceased. And that's just not true. And I just want to point that out to you so that you understand that. All right, Madam Prosecutor. [01:26:22] Speaker 5: Thank you. And the message will be from Ron Miller. [01:26:28] Speaker 10: All right, this is Ron Miller. I'm the father of Annemarie. My wife and I have received a phone call from one of Annemarie's friends from San Diego back in the day of the murder. And nobody knew what happened. They just knew that they just almost set up. They couldn't get him to see Annemarie. The apartment was surrounded by the leaves. Well, I called the San Diego Police Department from the Philippines here where we live. But I was informed that even though I'm the father and the mother that were made here with me, that they could not give us any information over the phone. [01:27:14] Speaker ?: They couldn't tell us anything. And I gave them the name of our daughter in New Mexico so they could call her. And like that, I already knew what happened. I already knew that she had been murdered. [01:27:32] Speaker 10: And we just waited for the final word from our daughter when they got the word from the police department that she was murdered. I'm kind of off script here a little bit because, please understand, this is extremely hard. We had Annemarie's body returned here to the Philippines where we could lay her to rest here. And we go and visit her once a week. We go to the cemetery and visit with her. We haven't got over this. Imagine if you get her maybe again, but how I feel about losing my youngest child to the man that promised to love and take care of her and her granddaddy. And he ends up murdering her. My wife and I tried to understand why, or what could we have done to have changed the outcome of this. Watching the trial, hearing the verdict of guilty and first degree murder, death brings up closure. [01:28:51] Speaker ?: But, I would love to see a sentence of life in prison without parole. This is what this guy needs. I don't consider him a man. [01:29:03] Speaker 10: A man would not do this. But I hope he gets life in prison without parole. I want him to rock in prison for what he done to my daughter. He was a beautiful, loving woman. He done everything with everybody else, always putting earth all flat. I ask that you please take into account that all consequences of the suffering that we as the victims and the family of the victims have gone through and continue to go through because the choice was made by this person. I believe right now that the defendant is a danger to the gun. He knew what he was doing from the first moment that he started appealing to the anti-Marie. I ask that you please don't forget who the victims are here because he is not. Basically, he deserves to be punished after terrifying and amusing Anne-Marie and his daughter who witnessed so much in their view. And for making us live and just keep paying for the rest of our lives, he doesn't deserve her purpose. That she has no mercy for my daughter and the Marine. Thank you, Your Honor. [01:30:31] Speaker 3: Thank you, sir. [01:30:35] Speaker 5: Thank you, Your Honor, for listening to all the impact statements. I would ask the court to sentence the defendant consecutively on this case for counts one and two. I did, in my brief, cite a case, People v. Garnica, that stands for the fact that the court can impose consecutive life-without-for-roll sentences for each murder. Since there are two murders here, there is no murder more deserving than another for the LWOP sentence or a state sentence. And so I would ask the court to sentence the defendant consecutively on count one, LWOP, life-without-parole, plus 25 years to life for the enhancement, and a consecutive LWOP sentence on count two with another consecutive 25-to-life sentence for the enhancement. I laid all the aggravating factors in this case out of my brief. And so I wanted to ask the court not to strike any of the enhancements. The aggravating factors here far outweigh any mitigating in the fact that this crime involved great violence, it involved death, it involved the use of a firearm, it involved two vulnerable victims who were unarmed. The defendant took advantage of a position of trust, using a key card to enter an apartment he no longer was living in. These were planned crimes, planned executions, not heat-of-passion crimes. And the defendant has shown that he has exhibited violent conduct, proving he's a danger to society. And so for all the aggravating factors here, I would ask the court not only not to strike any enhancements, but to give the defendant a sentence of consecutive LWOP terms. I would also ask for restitution. There is a victim compensation board claiming for $12,890. That is for the funeral expenses for both Anna and Ray. There are also two other requests. Amalia Miller and Ron Miller, Anna's parents, live in the Philippines. They had to get a visa to fly out here. That was quite a lengthy process. They wanted to be out there for the trial. They did fly out here. The trial ended up being continued after they were here. That flight cost was $3,324.24. The other request for restitution is to Hermae Sartin, H-E-R-M-A-E-S-A-R-T-I-N. She had to fly out here three times, once for a funeral, once to take care and close up Anna's apartment and take the items from the apartment. And then flew here for sentencing to represent the family and make an impact statement. That amount requested is $1,214.66. Under appeal code 1202.4 families of victims are entitled to economic losses that includes economic losses for trial. I can give the court of citation to people versus Chris and people versus Chris and Ron Miller. [01:33:50] Speaker 3: I'll tell you what, today is really not the day to talk about this, I don't think. Counsel, will your client wait as right to be president of any restitution hearing? I know we can sort this out at a later date. [01:34:00] Joseph Green: Your Honor, I had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Boulevard prior to beginning the sentencing. He is prepared to stipulate to the restitution being sought by prosecution. [01:34:08] Speaker 3: Okay. [01:34:09] Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. So, the people would ask those amounts to be ordered also for the court to reserve restitution for any remaining amounts or counseling that is sought in the future. I would ask the court as the victims that have asked for the maximum sentence. That is the only sentence that will properly punish this defendant, prevent his future crimes, deter others, and protect the community. After judgment in this case, I have informed all parties that people are filing a Penal Code Section 1203.01 statement that's a packet that gets sent to CDCR with the defendant. Thank you. [01:34:46] Speaker 1: You're up. [01:34:47] Joseph Green: We just want to start off by saying that Mr. Boulevard and his defense team and everyone involved in representing him does have great sympathy and empathy for the victims of this case and their loss. Hearing their words is unimaginable, the pain and suffering that they are experiencing. But I think the court's comments reflect very sadly what is the reality in that what they are actually seeking and what they really want, very sadly they will never have, which is their family members return to them. And what we have to do here is decide what is a fair and just punishment, not only based on the crime that was committed, but also judging the person who was accused and ultimately convicted of this crime. While we have and have expressed remorse and sympathy for the victims, it's also important to understand who Mr. Bullivan is what the Bullivan is. We know that to make common sense is common knowledge that we as people are a product of the environments in which we grow up, the environments in which we spend our formative years learning how to respond to emotional crises, how to properly reflect on our decisions and the consequences of what it is, how to respond to emotional crises, how to respond to emotional crises, how to respond to emotional crises, how to properly reflect on our decisions and the consequences of our decisions. And when someone is exposed to the type of violence that Mr. Bullivan was exposed to as a child, it leaves an imprint. As we know, again, it's common sense, but we know this from the literature, it leaves an imprint on the human mind and Mr. Bullivan is someone who I think the court can see from his mother's testimony, from the doctor's testimony, and from his own testimony. He is someone who was fundamentally and is fundamentally stunted emotionally. He is someone who suffers from extreme mental illness that for the majority of his life went undiagnosed and untreated. He is someone who, because of the impact of the violence and trauma that he experienced growing up that left this imprint that formed him into the person that he is, because of the mental illness that was left unchecked and went raging throughout his brain, developed an extreme addiction to cocaine that also then had an impact on the decisions that he made. In particular, leading up to the incident and on the day of the incident, and while we respect the verdict that was handed down by the jury, we still believe that Mr. Bullivan was acting under a heat of passion when he committed the crimes that he did. We are asking the court to consider all of the evidence that he had heard, both from the prosecution's witnesses, as well as the defense witnesses, as well as from Mr. Bullivan, from his family, from his friends, from the people who knew him and loved him as a son, as a father, as a friend, as a brother, as a husband. And I would also ask the court to consider him to be a judge of the court. [01:38:19] Speaker ?: And I would ask the court to consider the court to be a judge of the court. [01:38:19] Joseph Green: And I would ask the court to be a judge of the court to be a judge of the court. And I would ask the court to be a judge of the court to be a judge of the court. And I would ask the court to be a judge of the court to be a judge of the court. And I would ask the court to be a judge of the court to be a judge of the court. We are asking this court to sentence him to a just sentence, imposing the court's hands are tied with the ultimate sentence of life without parole. But I would ask the court to run the life without parole concurrently. I would also ask the court to strike the punishment on the 12022.53D. I don't think that there is any justification from posing an additional 25 to life on each count. Given that Mr. Boullabon, based on what is the anticipated sentence, will spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole. And we are asking the court to make this tough decision, but the just decision and the right decision in sentencing Mr. Boullabon. Thank you. [01:39:06] Speaker 3: Mr. Boullabon? Yes, Your Honor. If you want to make a statement, this is the time. [01:39:12] Speaker 11: Your Honor, I have something we're in. Okay. May I face? [01:39:19] Speaker 3: Sure. [01:39:42] Speaker ?: Good morning, everyone. [01:39:44] Speaker 11: In a situation like this, there really isn't much a person can say that can help make things better. Losing a loved one to senseless and unnecessary violence isn't something that anyone should have to go through. And yet, it has happened. And here I am, being the reason why multiple families have had to experience it. I can't say that I'm proud of that. Throughout this trial, many horrific things were displayed. And as we sat here for weeks having to endure some of the most disturbing audio recordings and video footage, I sat there in silence, listening, watching, and being reminded of the worst moments of my life. Having to hear myself say some of the most vile, shocking, and hateful things to the woman I love was not easy. In fact, I couldn't help but at times close my eyes and cover my ears, because that's not who I am. My behavior was disgusting and completely unacceptable. So when the time came for me to take the stand, I tried as best as I could to help make some sense of all this. To explain that everything you all saw in the last few months leading up to this incident was a horrific result of the tragic downfall to a once beautiful relationship. But even so, in those three days that I took the stand, I was able to share and say a lot of things. Except the one thing I wanted to say the most. I am so incredibly sorry to each and every one of you who have been affected by this. I cannot imagine the pain that I have caused your families. I saw the look on all your faces and the tears in your eyes, and I hate that I'm the reason for it. On that day of October 21st, 2021, I was in the worst physical and mental state of my life. I was sick, suffering from an untreated severe mental illness that was combined with a crippling drug addiction, which put me in a state of a drug-induced psychosis. My response in that moment was an unintended, impulsive reaction against my better judgment to the discovery of Ray's romantic involvement with my wife. And for that, I'm sorry. I'm sorry that in that moment, I was not mentally strong enough to control myself. I'm sorry that my horrendous action that day resulted in the undeserved deaths of Barayburn Barone and Anna Marie Abilaba. My partner, my best friend, the mother of my daughter, and the love of my life. I am ashamed of what took place. I am devastated by the damage that I've caused to Anna's family, to Ray's family, and to my family. If I could undo all of this, I wouldn't hesitate. If I could go back to that day, I would have left for LA first thing in the morning as I had originally planned. I would have given Anna the space she wanted, and I would have used that time to focus on getting the proper help I so desperately needed. And I would get on my knees and beg Anna for forgiveness. Forgiveness for becoming distracted. For letting my anxiety and my insecurities affect my thoughts and my behavior towards Anna and towards her friend. Forgiveness for using cocaine as a remedy and becoming addicted because of it. For neglecting my responsibilities to you, Anna, as your husband and my responsibilities as a father. And for allowing the drugs to turn me into a pathetic empty shell of the man that she fell in love with. Because of those factors, I lost myself. And because of those factors, I lost Anna. I am so deeply sorry to each and every one of you, who have suffered for the last three years. To the Cardenas Maron family. To Ray's mother and father, I am so sorry for what I've done to your son. To Jordana and his siblings, I am so sorry for what I've done to your brother. I really wish I could have gotten to know Ray the way that you all do. The way his friends did. And now after seeing just how consistently you all showed up to this trial in support of him. I have no doubt in my mind that Ray was a good person. The world has truly suffered a great loss and for that I'm terribly sorry. I wish this never happened. To Anna Marie's family, whom I still love and consider to be my family. There's so much I want to say. To Anna's mother Amalia and to Ron, you trusted me to protect your daughter and I failed you. I wish there was something more I could offer besides an apology. I wish there was a way for me to fix this. I'm so truly sorry for what I've done to Anna, her parents, her siblings, aunts, and her uncles. I feel terrible. Anna was the most beautiful woman I've ever met and I wanted to spend the rest of my life with her. To love and cherish her. Never to hurt her. To build her up. Not to break her down. But I failed. I am thankful, however, that Anna and I were able to have a child. A granddaughter for both of our families to rejoice with. It is my belief that the love and spirit that Anna radiated will continue on through her. To Amira, my beloved daughter. Amira, when you're old enough to see this, please don't blame yourself. None of this is your fault. Your mom loved you so much and I love you so much. You're the strongest girl I've ever known and I'm so proud to be your father. I'm sorry for what my foolish actions have cost of you. From what's been taken from you. I'm sorry that now you not only have to grow up without your mother, but now you have to grow up without your father too. I'm ashamed. But that is why I will strive each and every day to better myself. To seek rehabilitation and to hopefully one day come back home to you. Because not being a part of your daily life tears me apart. To the Honorable Judge Frazier, I want to thank you for being extremely fair to me throughout this trial. And for giving me the opportunity to defend myself. It is truly unfortunate that despite the compelling evidence that this was a crime of passion, somehow the jury still landed on this verdict. And they certainly wasted no time in doing so. The fact that I spent more time on the stand than the jury took to deliberate my fate is very concerning. In fact, the jury foreman himself told Fox 5 news reporters that a few of the jurors wanted to pick second degree. But were pressured not to by the rest of the jury. I think that speaks for itself, loud and clear. That reasonable doubt was intentionally overlooked. And that justice was not the motivating factor behind the decision. It was vengeance. And now I am left with no other option but to spend the rest of my life in prison. Death by incarceration. A very slow and drawn out death sentence. That means that 50 years from now, should I still be alive, I would still not be considered for release. I don't think that's fair at all. Especially after it has been made clear that drugs and alcohol were involved. And add that along with infidelity and mental illness. And you've got a recipe for disaster. One that anyone could fall into. It's happened to me and I still can't be. Being sent to prison without the hope of ever getting out, honestly feels like I'm being sent to hell. And that's terrifying. And I don't think that's right either. Personally, I believe everyone should have the ability to parole. Because everyone has the ability to change. But nonetheless, even still, it is my goal to serve my time with the utmost outstanding conduct. And to participate in every rehabilitative program while being a positive role model to other prisoners. And I will do all this to the best of my ability with the goal of one day safely transitioning back into society. And finally, to everyone else, I extend my deepest apology from the bottom of my heart. I'm sorry. I wish you all peace, healing, love, and abundant joy in your future. I will continue to pray that I may earn your forgiveness. Thank you. [01:49:18] Speaker 6: You still believe it's still crime impacting, huh? You still believe that? [01:49:24] Speaker 11: Alright. [01:49:25] Speaker 3: First, we'll take care of some preliminary matters. As a matter of law, the defendant is ineligible for probation. But if he was eligible for probation, this court would not give him probation. The court acknowledges its discretion and obligation at reviewing verdicts from when we get first degree of murders to see if it's second degree or even voluntary manslaughter. And I will explain also, as the defense is asked, that I have the authority to strike or reduce the gun enhancements. I also have the authority to run the ELWAP sentences consecutive or concurrent. And let me kind of briefly go through that and why I am giving the sentence that I am giving him. First of all, as to the first degree murder. I look at various factors, having sat through the trial. And I do this in every murder trial. And I don't take this lightly. I truly respect jury verdicts. Have I reduced a first degree murder to second degree? I have. In fact, I did it two weeks ago. But I'm not doing it today. And I'll explain why it's not happening today. A very simple reason. The jury heard all of the evidence. The jury evaluated all of the evidence. The jury came back with a first degree verdict, which was the correct verdict. It was a verdict that, when you look at the totality of all that happened during this particular crime, it's the only verdict a reasonable person could come up with. And considering all of the evidence, we, and I'll just hit a few high points that I think honestly the jury was looking at. The defendant's text message to his cousin about killing. Defendant's controlling demeaning behavior. When he said just a few minutes ago, he wants us to know who he is. That's who he is. It's very clear from the videos. His driving over to the apartment with a loaded gun. The fact that the victims were helpless, completely taken by surprise. The planning of a listening device. Firing within seconds of entering the apartment. Clearly showing an intent to kill. Not heat of passion. Willful, deliberate, premeditated, cold-blooded murder. And something that is hard to explain. Ray was not involved in their problems at all. But he shot Ray first. Shot him in the head. In an intent to kill. Don't shoot people in the head unless you want to kill them. And in front of Ana. That was deliberate. He wanted her to see it. Very cool. He took photos immediately afterwards. Who does that? He calls his mother. He had three days on the stand to explain his actions. He explained them. And the jurors came up, again, with the only reasonable verdict. Which is a first degree verdict. They also found, because there was two deaths, that this was multiple murder. Under Penal Code Section 190.2A3. The next thing this court has to consider is the gun enhancements. In the state of California, the legislature has, both slowly and quickly, changed certain enhancements. And the court is obligated to look at reducing certain enhancements, including those that require or have a 20 plus year addition to the sentence. And again, I look at both mitigating and aggravating factors. Of course, it goes without saying this crime involved great violence. It involved a firearm. It involved all the vulnerable victims who, again, had no time to react, no time to defend themselves. It involved planning. I don't think you could say it was sophistication or professionalism, but it certainly involved planning. When you load a gun, arm yourself with a gun, drive 10 or 15 minutes to an apartment complex. As we saw on video, his demeanor going up the elevator, his demeanor going down the elevator, that showed planning. And obviously, he took advantage of a position of trust. Clearly, she didn't know he had a key, but he took advantage of that. Now, there are certain factors that, as for mitigating factors under the rules of court, I don't find any. Zero. None. There are certain factors with the defendant that I am obligated to take a look at. I acknowledge he has no prior record. I acknowledge the fact that, at the time of this killing, he was suffering substance abuse and had certain, some mental health issues. But, I reject the fact that his childhood contributed to this at all. I hear terrible childhoods, day in and day out. And, his was not ideal. But, it wasn't what we hear in this particular court. And, I don't think that any of these crimes were connected, in fact, to his mental health or even his substance abuse. He was over 26. It did involve intimate partner violence, but he was the one that was committing the violence on her. And, of course, he denied, when confronted with it, what happened initially. So, the court is not going to strike or reduce the gun enhancements. The question, then, becomes one of whether or not these life without possibility of parole should be consecutive or concurrent. And, that's a big deal. It will, in all likelihood, determine whether or not he dies in prison or out of prison. Whether he dies a free man or one who's not. And, this is, the bottom line on this is, I've watched him here during all of this time. He's a very talented actor. He is a very talented actor. He is a very talented actor. When I saw the Scarface videos, it's as if, when he committed these crimes, he became that persona of Scarface, of just the cold-blooded killing without remorse. Any tears that he's cried in this courtroom have been for himself. They are not for Ray and Anna. It's just, that's the reality. He fears the consequences, as he should, of his actions. But, as he sits here today, I don't know if he's really sorry. I have serious reservations about it. I know he's sorry about the consequences of going to prison for the rest of his life. But, I can't say that I think he's sorry for having killed these two innocent human beings. He's a very selfish person, as I think the jury saw. That was something that his character kind of came through. And, we ask, who is Ali Aboulaban? That's who he is. He's somebody that is only thinking about himself. And, the idea of killing two innocent people doesn't disturb him. It's chilling. So, the bottom line here is, he will die in prison. He will never be a free man. He will take his last breath later. Please, please, please. In this matter, the defendant on count one, will be sentenced to life without the possibility of probation, via Penal Code section 1190.2, parent A, parent 3. Consecutive to that, will be 25 years to life on the gun enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, D. Consecutive to count one, will be count two, which will be life without the possibility of parole, Penal Code section 190.2, parent A, 3. And, consecutive to that, will be the gun enhancement of 25 to life under Penal Code section 12022.53, D. Total prison term, 50 years to life plus LWAP, life without the possibility of parole. He's given the following custody credits of 1,552 days. He is given the following fines and fees. [02:00:16] Speaker 6: Your Honor, probation has credits of 1,052 as of today. [02:00:20] Speaker 3: Okay, 1,052. He will pay a restitution fine of 10,000 under Penal Code section 1202.4B. Court security fee of 80 under Penal Code section 1465.8. Criminal conviction fee of 60. The general order of restitution. Restitution at today's time will be set at, for the funeral expenses, of $12,890. And what was your other restitution amounts? [02:00:54] Speaker 5: Just so the record is clear, that $12,809 is the victim compensation board. [02:01:00] Speaker 3: Correct. [02:01:01] Speaker 5: The amount to Amalia Miller is $3,324.24. Excuse me, Your Honor. We can cancel that, Mr. No. [02:01:13] Speaker 3: Okay. I can't. Please, don't interrupt. [02:01:16] Speaker 5: Go ahead. The amount to Permet Sartan is $1,214.66. [02:01:24] Speaker 3: All right. Those amounts will also be ordered. All right. Thank you all. [02:01:30] Speaker 5: Your Honor, may I just, I just want to make one clarification. When the court amounts to sentence 50 to life plus ELWAP, is that plus two terms in ELWAP? One for each. [02:01:39] Speaker 3: As I indicated, the counts one and two on ELWAP, under the special circumstances alleged and pled and proven under P&A section 190.2 are consecutive to each other. So that's two consecutive ELWAP terms, plus on each count, 25 to life, totaling 50 to life, plus ELWAP. Plus ELWAP. So, yes, they are consecutive to each other. [02:02:01] Speaker 1: Thank you. [02:02:02] Speaker 3: Is it because it's ELWAP, there's not a second of 10,000? Is that? Yeah. Okay. Okay. [02:02:11] Speaker ?: All right. [02:02:12] Speaker 3: We'll be in recess. Thank you. [02:02:43] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.