1

Filed 12/11/23 P. v. Bruno CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALEX JAMES BRUNO,

Defendant and Appellant.

C098283

(Super. Ct. No. 12F06363)

Defendant Alex James Bruno appeals from the denial of his postconviction 

petition seeking resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1section 1172.6. Counsel for 

defendant filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. 

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, asking this court to exercise its discretion to review the 

entire record for arguable issues on appeal. Defendant also filed a supplemental brief in 

propria persona. We will affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In June 2015, a jury found defendant guilty of attempting to murder two people. 

The trial court had instructed the jury: “To prove that defendant is guilty of attempted 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

murder, the People must prove that: [¶] 1. The defendant took at least one direct but 

ineffective step toward killing another person; [¶] AND [¶] 2. The defendant intended 

to kill that person.” The court did not instruct the jury on any other theory of attempted 

murder. The jury also found defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a 

firearm during the attempted murders, thereby proximately causing great bodily injury to 

each victim. The trial court sentenced defendant to 61 years four months to life in state 

prison. 

In July 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to 

section 1172.6, alleging that he could no longer be convicted of attempted murder 

because of changes made to the definition of murder in sections 188 and 189. (See Stats. 

2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-3.) The trial court appointed counsel to represent defendant. The 

People filed a response to defendant’s petition, arguing defendant was ineligible for relief 

under section 1172.6 because the jury’s findings precluded any possibility that defendant 

could no longer be convicted of attempted murder. Defendant filed a reply addressing 

the preclusive effect of the firearm enhancements but not addressing the attempted 

murder verdict. 

The trial court held a hearing and determined defendant had failed to make a prima 

facie case that he was entitled to relief because the jury had not been instructed on a 

theory of attempted murder eliminated by the changes to sections 188 and 189. Because 

defendant could still be convicted of attempted murder under the only theory presented to 

the jury, the trial court denied defendant’s petition. Defendant timely appealed from the 

order. 

II. DISCUSSION

Under Delgadillo, we must “evaluate the specific arguments presented in 

[defendant’s supplemental brief],” but we are not compelled to undertake an 

“independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.” (People v. 

Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Defendant argues: (1) his appointed counsel 
3

performed ineffectively by failing to “raise any relevant facts” in support of his 

resentencing petition; and (2) section 1172.6 violates the right to equal protection of the 

laws or is otherwise unconstitutional. We disagree.

When a defendant files a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, the trial 

court proceeds in two stages: a prima facie stage and then, if necessary, an evidentiary 

stage. First, “the court must evaluate the petition ‘to determine whether the petitioner has 

made a prima facie case for relief.’ ” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708; 

§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) If the defendant has made a prima facie showing of entitlement to 

relief, the trial court shall issue an order to show cause. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) Then, the 

trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden of 

proving, “ ‘beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted 

murder’ ” under the recently amended versions of sections 188 and 189. (Strong, at 

pp. 708-709; § 1172.6, subd. (d).)

Defendant’s ineffective assistance argument fails because his petition was denied

at the prima facie stage of the process. The trial court found the jury in defendant’s trial 

had not been instructed on any theory of attempted murder that had been invalidated by 

the changes to sections 188 and 189. This meant defendant could still be convicted of 

attempted murder under the only theory tried, so he failed “to establish any grounds for 

relief.” Accordingly, the trial court declined to issue an order to show cause or hold an 

evidentiary hearing. Defendant does not challenge this ruling. Because defendant’s 

petition did not make it to the evidentiary stage, we cannot fault his lawyer for failing to 

“raise any relevant facts” or “thoroughly investigate this case for a defense.” 

Defendant has failed to fully develop his argument that section 1172.6 denies 

equal protection of the laws or is otherwise unconstitutional. “To demonstrate error, 

appellant must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and 

citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 

138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) To demonstrate that “a statutory distinction is so devoid of 
4

even minimal rationality that it is unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection,” 

defendant must establish that the law affects two or more similarly situated groups in an 

unequal manner and must overcome the presumption that the law “bears a rational 

relationship to a legitimate state purpose.” (People v. Chatman (2018) 4 Cal.5th 277, 

289.) 

The closest defendant comes to analyzing section 1172.6 is asserting that the 

“Attorney General has conceded on several cases over the course of [two] years” that 

section 1172.6 denies equal protection and that “the lower state court’s [sic] have argued 

in several cases since the passing of [section] 1172.6 [that it] is not ‘constitutional.’ ” 

Defendant has not identified or provided any citations to these cases. Nor has defendant 

explained how he is similarly situated to a group benefited by section 1172.6 or 

overcome the presumption that the law has a rational basis. Accordingly, we must reject 

defendant’s arguments.

III. DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s resentencing petition is affirmed.

 /s/

Wiseman, J.*

We concur:

 /s/

Robie, Acting P. J.

 /s/

Krause, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by 

the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.