Filed 9/25/24 P. v. Jimenez CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MIGUEL JIMENEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H051809 

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. No. 18CR004825)

THE COURT1

Defendant Miguel Jimenez appeals an order denying a petition for resentencing 

under Penal Code section 1172.6.

2

 On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. 

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and Jimenez filed a supplemental letter. 

Having reviewed Jimenez’s letter, we conclude that Jimenez has failed to raise an 

arguable issue on appeal and affirm the order. 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3

In August 2019, Jimenez pleaded no contest to second degree attempted murder 

(§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), and assault with a deadly 

1 Before Greenwood, P. J., Grover, J. and Danner, J. 

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 The underlying facts are not relevant to this appeal but were stated in this court’s 

opinion in Jimenez’s prior appeal. (People v. Jimenez (July 27, 2023, H050000)

[nonpub. opn.].) 
2

weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). He also admitted allegations of firearm use (§ 12022.5, 

subd. (a)), and a prior strike. In the plea waiver form, Jimenez agreed that the 

preliminary hearing transcript provided a factual basis for the conviction. At the change 

of plea hearing, Jimenez’s counsel stipulated to a factual basis as set forth in the plea 

waiver. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 20 years and four months. In 

January 2022, Jimenez petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95. After 

the trial court found that Jimenez had failed to make a prima facie showing and denied 

the petition, Jimenez appealed. In an unpublished opinion (People v. Jimenez, supra, 

H050000), this court reversed and remanded the matter with instructions to issue an order 

to show cause and to conduct further proceedings in accordance with Penal Code section 

1172.6.

4

Upon remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing where the court heard

testimony from multiple witnesses and received other evidence including video 

surveillance of the crime. On January 30, 2024, the trial court found that Jimenez was 

the direct perpetrator of the shooting and that he harbored the express malice of the intent

to kill. Based on these findings, the trial court denied Jimenez’s petition. Thereafter, 

Jimenez filed a timely notice of appeal. 

On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 

at pages 231-232. We notified Jimenez that he could file a supplemental brief on his own 

behalf, and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. (Id. 

at p. 232.) Jimenez filed a timely supplemental letter. 

4 Appellant’s May 7, 2024 request for judicial notice is granted. We take judicial 

notice of the opinion filed in People v. Jimenez, supra, H050000, as well as the 

resentencing petition, the trial court order denying the resentencing petition, and the 

preliminary hearing transcript that were included in the record filed in that previous 

appeal.
3

II. DISCUSSION

In his one paragraph supplemental letter, Jimenez states that there was insufficient 

evidence at the evidentiary hearing to prove that he was one of the suspects, that witness 

testimony was inconsistent and that some of the evidence was based on hearsay. The 

letter fails to raise an arguable issue on appeal. An issue is arguable if it has a reasonable 

potential for success, and, if resolved favorably for the appellant, the result will either be 

a reversal or a modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 

106, 109.) 

The trial court held a hearing where multiple individuals testified and the video 

surveillance of the crime was admitted. Based on this evidence, the court expressly 

concluded that one of those two individuals observed on the video was the Defendant. 

The court stated, “[i]t’s well-proven beyond a reasonable doubt” that “[d]efendant was 

one of the two individuals” who fired “repeated shots directly at the victims, narrowly 

missing them as they fled, striking the items directly located behind their flight.” On 

appeal, we must defer to the trial court’s factfinding, and we review the trial court’s 

findings for substantial evidence. (People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575, 591, 

review den. (Oct. 12, 2022).) Except to say that the video quality is poor, Jimenez fails to 

explain why the court’s finding that he was one of the individuals on the video was in 

error or why we should not defer to the trial court’s finding. Nor does Jimenez suggest 

another valid basis for this court to question whether substantial evidence supports the 

trial court’s findings. 

Vague assertions regarding inconsistent or inadmissible evidence without 

specificity are insufficient to raise an arguable issue. On appeal, we are required to 

accept factual inferences made by the trial court and to presume that the facts support the 

judgment. (People v. Mitchell, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 591.) We must also presume 

that the court’s judgment was correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively 

demonstrate error. (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) Jimenez
4

having failed to raise an arguable issue in his supplemental letter, we must affirm the trial 

court’s order. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503-504.) 

III. DISPOSITION

The order denying the section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.