Filed 6/26/24 P. v. Monarrez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN MONARREZ,

Defendant and Appellant. G062870

(Super. Ct. No. 96NF1712)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a post

judgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appo intment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.2 Juan Monarrez appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing . (Pen.
Code, § 1172.6. ) However, h is app ointed attorney filed a brief under the procedures

described in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 , declaring he was unable to find
any issues to raise on appellant’s behalf. And having reviewed the record ourselves , we have not detected any arguable issues either. We th us affirm the trial court’s denial order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1999, appellant was convicted of attempted premeditated murder and
other crimes for shooting a former member of his gang. ( Pen. Code, §§ 664 /187, subd.
(a) .) The jury also found true allegations that appellant used a firearm , inflicted great bodily injury

, and acted for the benefit of a criminal street gang

. ( Pen. Code, §§ 12022.5
, subd. (a), 12022.7, 186.22, subd. (b) .) As a second strike offender, appellant was

sentenced to prison for 30 years to life
, plus 13 years and 4 months. W e affirmed the
judgment on appeal. ( People v. Monarrez ( Nov. 6, 2001 , G0 25919 ) [nonpub. opn.].)

I n 202 3 , appellant sought resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.
Following a response by the People and a hearing at which appellant was represented by
appointed counsel, the court denied his petition for failing to make a prima facie case

.

On appeal, appointed coun sel filed a brief raising no issues but requesting
that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo , supra, 14

Cal.5th 216. We informed appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief , however he

declined to do so. In the interest of justice
, we have examined the entire record for any
arguable issue s

. (See i d . at p. 230.) But our review has only confirmed appointed

counsel ’ s conclusion that there is no basis to disturb the trial cou rt’s denial order.

DISCUSSION
To be eligible for resentencing for the crime of attempted murder, the
defendant must have been convicted under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine or some other theory under which malice w as imputed to him based solely on his
participation in a crime. ( Pen. Code, § 1172.6, subd. (a).) However, a ppellant ’ s jury was3

not instructed on any such theory. Instead, the jury was told that it could only convict
him of attempted murder if he person ally intended to kill and he personally took a direct
but ineffectual step toward achieving that objective. (CALCRIM No. 600.)

By finding appellant guilty of that offense, and finding that he personally
used a firearm to carry it out
, the jury convicted him based on his own actions and his

own malice. Consequently, he is ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law, and

the trial court properly denied his petition at the prima facie stage of the proceedings.
(See People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 470

- 471 [ the summary denial of a
resentencing petition is justified if the record of conviction conclusively negates the
defendant’s right to relief] .) There is no arguable basis for disturbing that decision.

DISPOSITION

The trial court ’ s order denying appellant ’ s petition is affirmed.

BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

DELANEY, J.