Filed 2/7/23 P. v. Bonilla CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MANUEL BONILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B321511

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA399015)

THE COURT:

In 2013, a jury found defendant and appellant Manuel 

Bonilla guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, 

subd. (a)),1 possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & 

Saf. Code, § 11378), possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11351), possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 11351.5), and two counts of possession of a firearm by a 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
2

felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). As to the murder, the jury found 

true, among other allegations, that defendant personally used 

and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death to 

the victim within the meaning of section 12022.53, 

subdivision (d). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total 

term of 57 years to life in state prison.

On direct appeal, we instructed the trial court to amend the 

abstract of judgment to reflect an additional day of presentence 

custody credit; we otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. 

Bonilla (Dec. 2, 2014, B249622) [nonpub. opn.], at p. 15.)

On April 29, 2021, defendant, in propria persona, filed a 

petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former 

§ 1170.95).2 On May 7, 2021, the trial court summarily denied 

the petition on the ground that defendant had failed to establish 

a prima facie case for relief.

On February 28, 2022, defendant filed a second 

section 1172.6 petition. This time, the trial court found that the 

petition met “the basic requirements of the statute.” Accordingly, 

the court appointed counsel to represent defendant. The People 

opposed the petition.

On June 9, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s second 

section 1172.6 petition. The court again found that defendant 

had failed to establish a prima facie case for relief. The court 

explained that the jury had been instructed on the theories that 

defendant shot the victim and that he was an aider and abettor to 

the shooting; the jury had not been instructed on felony murder 

or the doctrine of natural and probable consequences. The jury 

2 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered 

section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) 

For simplicity, we refer to the section by its new numbering.
3

had not found defendant guilty based on a theory of vicarious 

liability; rather it found that “defendant was the actual shooter 

and that he personally used and discharged the firearm.”

Defendant timely appealed from the ruling.

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in

connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel 

filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to 

independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel stated that she had 

advised defendant that he could file a supplemental brief and had 

sent him the transcripts and a copy of the opening brief.

On November 17, 2022, we sent a notice to defendant

stating the following: “Counsel appointed to represent appellant 

on appeal has filed an appellant’s opening brief that raises no 

issues. ([Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p.] 442.) [¶] Appointed 

counsel is directed to send the record of this appeal and a copy of 

appellant’s opening brief to appellant immediately. Within 

30 days of the date of this notice, appellant may submit a 

supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or 

contentions, or arguments which appellant wishes this court to 

consider.”

To date, defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

An appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition “does 

not implicate a constitutional right to counsel[.]” (People v. 

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 222 (Delgadillo).) Accordingly, 

when counsel finds no arguable issues in such an appeal, we are 

not required to conduct an independent review of the record as 

set out in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. (Delgadillo, supra, at 

p. 222.) Rather, the California Supreme Court recently 

prescribed the following procedures:
4

“When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues to be 

pursued on appeal: (1) counsel should file a brief informing the 

court of that determination, including a concise recitation of the 

facts bearing on the denial of the petition; and (2) the court 

should send, with a copy of counsel’s brief, notice to the 

defendant, informing the defendant of the right to file a 

supplemental letter or brief and that if no letter or brief is filed 

within 30 days, the court may dismiss the matter. [Citations.]

“If the defendant subsequently files a supplemental brief or 

letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific 

arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion. 

The filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an 

independent review of the entire record to identify unraised 

issues. [Citations.] If the defendant does not file a supplemental 

brief or letter, the Court of Appeal may dismiss the appeal as 

abandoned. [Citation.] If the appeal is dismissed as abandoned, 

the Court of Appeal does not need to write an opinion but should 

notify the defendant when it dismisses the matter. [Citation.] 

While it is wholly within the court’s discretion, the Court of 

Appeal is not barred from conducting its own independent review 

of the record in any individual section 1172.6 appeal. 

[Citations.]” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231–232.)

Here, we provided notice to defendant before Delgadillo

was issued. Although our notice informed defendant of his right 

to file a supplemental brief, it did not inform him that his appeal 

could be dismissed if a supplemental brief was not filed. 

Additionally, the notice “affirmatively cited Wende after 

[defendant]’s counsel had filed a brief pursuant to Wende.” 

(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233.) Thus, “the notice in this 

case was suboptimal.” (Ibid.)
5

As our Supreme Court did in Delgadillo under the same

circumstances, we have undertaken an independent review of the 

entire record on appeal “in the interest of judicial economy[.]” 

(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 222; see also id. at p. 233, 

fn. 6.) Based on this independent review, we are satisfied that 

defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with her

responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s second section 1172.6 

petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________

LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. CHAVEZ, J.