Samuel Magdaleno faces murder and burglary counts in the 2025 shooting death of Adrian Anthony Montiel.
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A Sept. 14 trial is scheduled for Samuel Magdaleno, a 38-year-old Bakersfield man who has denied first-degree murder and first-degree burglary charges arising from the fatal shooting of Adrian Anthony Montiel.
The trial will require prosecutors to turn an investigative account into admissible proof before a jury. Authorities allege Magdaleno argued with Montiel on Aug. 15, 2025, threatened to return and shoot him, came back about two hours later with a rifle and carried out the threat. They also cite statements from Magdaleno’s relatives about his condition and words after the shooting. Magdaleno has pleaded not guilty and is being held without bail, according to jail and court information cited in published reports.
Setting a trial date marks a procedural step, not a finding that the prosecution’s account is true. In a criminal trial, Magdaleno is presumed innocent, and prosecutors must prove every required element of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove an alternative version of events. It may instead challenge witness credibility, the handling of evidence, the meaning of alleged statements or any gap in the state’s attempt to connect Magdaleno to Montiel’s death.
The first-degree murder count places the defendant’s alleged state of mind at the center of the case. Published accounts of the court record say Magdaleno confronted Montiel because he believed Montiel was involved with his girlfriend. During that confrontation, Magdaleno allegedly warned that he would come back and shoot Montiel if he learned the suspicion was true. Prosecutors may rely on the timing and wording of that alleged threat as evidence that the shooting was considered in advance rather than committed without deliberation.
The defense will be able to examine who heard the warning, the conditions surrounding the argument and how investigators documented the account. The public reports do not identify the person who quoted the threat, state whether it was captured on audio or video, or disclose whether all witnesses remembered the same words. Those distinctions matter because a direct recording, a contemporaneous written statement and a later recollection may carry different weight with jurors.
The Kern County Sheriff’s Office reportedly received a call about the initial argument involving Magdaleno, Montiel and one of Montiel’s neighbors. Roughly two hours later, near midnight, the agency received another call reporting a shooting in the 2900 block of Edison Highway. Deputies found Montiel suffering from a gunshot wound to his right side. He was transported to Kern Medical and died at about 12:21 a.m. Aug. 16, according to the Kern County Coroner’s Office.
That two-hour interval may become an important part of the prosecution’s presentation. Prosecutors could argue that it gave Magdaleno time to leave, obtain a rifle, reconsider his actions and nevertheless return. The defense may challenge one or more links in that proposed sequence, including who saw Magdaleno depart, how his return was established and what evidence identifies him as the gunman. The reports do not specify whether anyone witnessed the actual shooting or whether a camera recorded it.
Authorities allege Magdaleno was no longer at the scene when deputies arrived. His relatives later told investigators that he reached their home sweating heavily, breathing hard and behaving in an unusual or paranoid manner. According to the reported court record, Magdaleno said he had “got into it” with Montiel and shot at him. Prosecutors may seek to present those reported remarks as admissions, while defense attorneys may question the wording, context and accuracy of each relative’s memory.
Family members also reportedly said Magdaleno told them he had discarded the rifle near a bridge. The reports do not say whether deputies located a rifle, whether a search of the stated area occurred or whether forensic testing produced a match to evidence from the shooting scene. Those omissions prevent an outside assessment of how much physical evidence supports the prosecution’s theory. If a firearm is offered at trial, the state would need to establish its relevance and a reliable record of its recovery and handling.
Another reported detail concerns Magdaleno’s departure from the family home after he heard sirens. One account says he took a hat and hooded sweatshirt before leaving. Prosecutors sometimes argue that flight or concealment reflects awareness of wrongdoing, but such conduct is not a substitute for proof of the underlying charges. A defense can offer a different interpretation, dispute whether the conduct happened as described or argue that it does not identify who fired the fatal shot.
Magdaleno was arrested in October 2025. Public reporting does not describe the investigative steps that led officers to him, his location when he was arrested or whether he spoke to detectives after being advised of his rights. It also does not say whether officers collected clothing, electronic devices, location records or other evidence during the arrest. Such material may exist in the case file without having been reported, but it cannot be treated as established until disclosed through reliable records or court proceedings.
The first-degree burglary count presents a different legal question from the murder accusation. Burglary generally requires proof of an entry made with the intent to commit theft or another felony, and California law distinguishes first-degree burglary based on the type of place involved. The published descriptions do not explain what entry Magdaleno is accused of making, whose property was involved or how prosecutors say the count connects to the shooting. The lack of public detail does not invalidate the charge, but it leaves its factual basis unclear.
Before jurors hear the case, the judge may be asked to decide whether certain statements or physical evidence may be introduced. Attorneys may litigate questions involving hearsay exceptions, witness identification, search procedures, expert testimony and the completeness of investigative reports. The available sources do not identify any pending evidentiary motions, and no outcome should be predicted. Such pretrial rulings can, however, shape how much of the original police narrative reaches the jury.
Prosecutors also must keep motive separate from proof of identity and intent. The allegation that Magdaleno believed Montiel was involved with his girlfriend may help explain why authorities focused on him, but the reports do not establish that the relationship existed. No statement from the girlfriend is included in the reviewed accounts. A mistaken belief can still be alleged as a motive, but evidence of jealousy alone would not prove that Magdaleno returned or fired a rifle.
Montiel was a 38-year-old Bakersfield resident. His obituary lists his birth date as Sept. 13, 1986, and describes him as a loving father, caring son and true friend. He died less than a month before his 39th birthday. The coroner’s identification and hospital death time establish the human loss at the center of a proceeding that otherwise will focus heavily on legal elements, witness reliability and physical evidence.
The reports say Magdaleno could face a lengthy prison sentence if convicted of first-degree murder, but sentencing would occur only after a conviction and would depend on the counts and allegations proved. The available sources do not identify any special-circumstance charge or disclose a prosecution sentencing position. It would therefore be premature to state a precise final punishment beyond noting the serious potential consequences of the pending counts.
The scheduled trial is the next major step, but the date may be continued. If the case proceeds, jurors will be asked to decide whether prosecutors have proved the alleged threat, return, shooting and related burglary beyond a reasonable doubt. Until a verdict is reached, Magdaleno’s plea and presumption of innocence remain in effect.
Author note: Last updated July 18, 2026.