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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered 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 postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, 

Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment 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, his appointed 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 thus 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. We affirmed the 

judgment on appeal. (People v. Monarrez (Nov. 6, 2001, G025919) [nonpub. opn.].) 

 In 2023, 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 counsel 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 issues. (See id. at p. 230.) But our review has only confirmed appointed 

counsel’s conclusion that there is no basis to disturb the trial court’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 was imputed to him based solely on his 

participation in a crime. (Pen. Code, § 1172.6, subd. (a).) However, appellant’s jury was 
3

not instructed on any such theory. Instead, the jury was told that it could only convict 

him of attempted murder if he personally 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.