1

Filed 11/30/22 P. v. Guzman CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DENNIS GARCIA GUZMAN,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B319490

(Super. Ct. No. 1312678)

(Santa Barbara County)

Dennis Garcia Guzman appeals an order denying his 

petition for resentencing pursuant to former Penal Code section

1170.95 (now section 1172.6).

1 The resentencing petition 

concerned his 2011 conviction of willful, deliberate, and 

premeditated murder with findings of a principal armed with a 

firearm and the crime committed to benefit a criminal street 

gang. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 186.22, 

subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced Guzman to a prison term of 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

50 years to life. We affirmed the conviction on appeal. (People v. 

Guzman (July 24, 2013, B232497) [nonpub. opn.].)

Following a later petition for habeas corpus, we reversed 

Guzman’s first degree murder conviction based upon the holding 

in People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 158-159 [aider and 

abettor may not be convicted of first degree murder pursuant to 

natural and probable consequences doctrine]. (In re Guzman

(Mar. 3, 2017, B264256) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the 

prosecutor accepted a reduction to second degree murder rather 

than retry the matter.

On January 3, 2019, Guzman filed a petition for 

resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court 

appointed counsel for Guzman and accepted briefing. The court 

then decided that Guzman was entitled to relief and it issued an 

order to show cause. On June 21, 2021, following briefing and 

admission of the reporter’s transcripts of the 2011 trial, the court 

found beyond a reasonable doubt that Guzman was the actual 

shooter and had the intent to kill the victim when he discharged 

the firearm. Alternatively, the court also found beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Guzman harbored malice aforethought as 

a direct aider and abettor to second degree implied malice 

murder. Guzman now appeals this decision.

We appointed counsel to represent Guzman in this appeal. 

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening briefing 

raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; 

People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496.) In response, we 

advised Guzman that he had 30 days within which to personally 

submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on 

appeal. We have received a response from him asserting that the 

trial court’s decision regarding actual malice is not supported by 
3

sufficient evidence. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 

106, 123-124, we present a brief factual and procedural summary 

of the case and treat the matter pursuant to People v. Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

2

Evidence of Murder

Hector Perez was fatally shot in an alleyway in Santa 

Maria claimed by the West Park criminal street gang. Brothers 

Dennis Guzman and Alexis Guzman were members of the West 

Park gang.3 Perez was not a member of a criminal street gang; 

he and Dennis had a physical altercation months before the fatal 

shooting. Perez prevailed.

On August 23, 2009, Alexis and a fellow gang member, 

Pedro Pozos, were in the alleyway. Perez and Jose Jarquin drove 

into the alley, parked their vehicle, and began listening to the 

stereo. Alexis and Perez then argued regarding the volume of the 

stereo. 

Alexis soon sent text messages seeking support from his 

fellow gang members, including his brother Dennis. Perez also 

sought support from his friends. Meanwhile, Dennis went to a 

fellow gang member’s residence and asked to borrow a firearm. 

A fight ensued in the alley. Perez was unarmed and shot 

twice at point blank range. Eyewitness accounts of the shooter’s 

identity varied – either Dennis, Alexis, or an unknown third 

person. Dennis possessed the firearm immediately after the 

shooting, however, and bragged to others that he shot Perez. 

2 We grant Guzman’s request to take judicial notice of the 

reporter’s transcript of the original trial.

3 We refer to the Guzman brothers by their first names not 

from disrespect, but to ease the reader’s task.
4

Dennis gave the firearm to his sister and instructed her to return 

it. Two bullets remained within the firearm; four had been fired. 

Dennis later visited the firearm’s owner, sought a shirt, and was 

wearing cloth gloves.

In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a 

conviction, we examine the entire record and draw all reasonable 

inferences therefrom in favor of the judgment to determine 

whether there is reasonable and credible evidence from which a 

reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt. (People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 57.) Our 

review is the same in a prosecution primarily resting upon 

circumstantial evidence. (People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 

331.) We do not redetermine the weight of the evidence or the 

credibility of witnesses. (People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 

60; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181 [“Resolution of 

conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive 

province of the trier of fact”].) “If the circumstances reasonably 

justify the trier of fact’s findings, reversal of the judgment is not 

warranted simply because the circumstances might also 

reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding.” (Albillar, at 

p. 60.)

Sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt supports the 

trial court’s decision that Dennis harbored express or implied 

malice. Upon a request by Alexis to join the fight, Dennis 

obtained a loaded firearm which he then took to the alley. He 

and Perez fought. When Perez appeared to be prevailing, Dennis 

shot him twice at point blank range. Pozos, a West Park 

member, testified that Dennis shot Perez. A .25 caliber firearm 

was used to commit the murder, similar to the firearm Dennis 
5

obtained. Dennis did not endeavor to assist Perez or obtain 

medical assistance.

Immediately following the shooting, Dennis possessed the 

firearm and fled the alley. He took the firearm to his sister and 

asked her to return it. Upon return of the firearm, the owner 

destroyed it. Dennis later asked the firearm’s owner for a shirt 

and admitted that he shot Perez, who was unarmed. The trial 

court expressly found the firearm’s owner was a credible witness 

beyond a reasonable doubt as was witness Pozos. Matters of 

witness credibility and the weight of the evidence are for the trier 

of fact to decide. We do not redetermine these matters. (People v. 

Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th 47, 60.)

The order is affirmed.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.
6

John R. McGregor, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Leonard J. Klaif, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.