Filed 8/3/23 P. v. Vasquez CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANGELO JACOB VASQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B323323

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. KA074614)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County. Rob B. Villeza, Judge. Reversed and remanded

with directions. 

Spolin Law, Aaron Spolin and Jeremy M. Cutcher for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, David E. Madeo and Chung L. Mar, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *
2

In 2007, a jury found defendant and appellant Angelo Jacob 

Vasquez guilty of two counts of murder, one count of attempted 

murder and found true personal firearm use allegations. The 

charges arose from an incident in April 2006 when defendant was 

16 years old. Defendant, along with two codefendants who are 

not parties to this appeal (Christopher Murray and Salvador Jay 

Villanueva, Jr.) confronted Christopher Trevizo, Demetries Flores 

and Damon Flores. (People v. Vasquez (May 6, 2010, B205698) 

[nonpub. opn.].) During the altercation, Murray shot and killed 

Trevizo and Demetries and shot at but missed Damon. (Ibid.) 

Defendants pointed guns at each of the Flores brothers but did 

not fire their weapons. (Ibid.) 

Codefendant Murray pled no contest to the charges. 

Defendant and codefendant Villanueva proceeded to a joint jury 

trial where they were both found guilty. Defendant was found 

guilty of two counts of second degree murder and one count of 

attempted murder. The jury found true the allegation that he 

personally used a firearm in the commission of all three offenses. 

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for an indeterminate 

term of 25 years to life. 

In 2010, this court affirmed defendant’s conviction in an 

unpublished decision. (People v. Vasquez, supra, B205698.) 

After the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 

Reg. Sess.), defendant filed a petition requesting resentencing 

pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 (former § 1170.95) which 

was summarily denied by the trial court. Former section 1170.95 

was renumbered and recodified as section 1172.6 with no change 

in the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For clarity, we refer to 

former section 1170.95 only by its new designation (§ 1172.6). 

Defendant timely appealed the denial of his petition. We 

affirmed the denial as to the attempted murder count, concluding 
3

the statutory language, at that time, provided relief only for those 

individuals convicted of murder. We reversed the denial as to the 

two murder convictions and remanded for further proceedings. 

(People v. Vasquez (Apr. 22, 2020, B299126) [nonpub. opn.].) 

On remand, the trial court issued an order to show cause

and set an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Penal Code 

section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3). Because of the COVID-19 

pandemic, the evidentiary hearing was delayed. While awaiting 

the hearing date, defendant filed a motion to transfer his case to 

juvenile court in light of the passage of Proposition 57 and 

directives issued by the District Attorney’s Office in December 

2020 regarding the filing of criminal charges against minors. In 

the interim, the Legislature also passed Senate Bill 775 (2021–

2022 Reg. Sess.) which, among other things, extended sentencing 

relief to those convicted of attempted murder (Stats. 2021, 

ch. 551, § 2).

The evidentiary hearing pursuant to Penal Code 

section 1172.6 took place over two days in May and June 2022. 

In addition to reviewing the record of conviction, the court heard 

testimony, including from codefendant Murray. After 

entertaining lengthy argument from counsel, the court took the 

matter under submission.

At a hearing on July 6, 2022, the court issued its ruling. 

The court granted defendant’s petition in part, finding that the 

prosecution had not met its burden as to the attempted murder 

charge. The court vacated defendant’s conviction for attempted 

murder and dismissed that count (count 3). As to the two murder 

counts (counts 1 & 2), the court found the prosecution had 

established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty 

of second degree murder either as a direct aider and abettor who 

had the intent to kill or who acted with implied malice. 
4

As to sentencing, the court said that defendant’s sentence 

of 25 years to life “remains the same.” Defendant’s sentence of 

“15 years to life as to counts 1 and 2, plus 10 years for 

section 12022.53(b) remain intact. It’s only as to count 3, which 

was 28 months, which was one-third the midterm, plus 10 years 

which ran concurrent to the other counts. That portion of the 

sentence is vacated.” 

The court went on to deny defendant’s motion to transfer, 

finding that defendant’s original sentence of 25 years to life 

“remain[ed] intact” and therefore it was final and there was no 

basis for applying Proposition 57 retroactively. Defendant 

argued the court was resentencing defendant and therefore 

Proposition 57 retroactivity applied. The court asked the parties 

to submit supplemental briefing on that issue. 

At a hearing on July 19, 2022, the court considered 

additional argument and stood by its original decision to deny 

defendant’s motion for transfer, reiterating that the original 

sentence of 25 years to life was not changed despite the dismissal 

of count 3 and therefore remained final for purposes of 

Proposition 57. 

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to 

transfer. He says the trial court’s sentencing following the 

partial granting of his section 1172.6 petition constituted a 

resentencing and Proposition 57 retroactivity applies. 

Respondent concedes a reversal and remand to the juvenile court 

for a transfer hearing is warranted. We agree. 

“In 2016, the voters of California enacted Proposition 57, a 

measure that amended the law governing the punishment of 

juvenile offenses in adult criminal court by requiring hearings to 

determine whether the offenses should instead be heard in 

juvenile court.” (People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 158.) 
5

Two years later, the Supreme Court concluded that the 

retroactivity rule of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 applied to 

Proposition 57, making its “provisions applicable to all cases in 

which the judgment was not final when the proposition went into 

effect.” (Padilla, at p. 158; People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 

4 Cal.5th 299, 309.) 

Penal Code section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3) states that if 

the prosecution fails to sustain its burden of proof at an 

evidentiary hearing, then “the prior conviction, and any 

allegations and enhancements attached to the conviction, shall be 

vacated and the petitioner shall be resentenced on the remaining 

charges.” (Italics added.) Vacatur of the attempted murder 

conviction rendered the judgment not final and required a 

resentencing hearing. That the court did not impose a different 

sentence on counts 1 and 2 does not mean the original sentence 

remained intact and final. Proposition 57 retroactivity applied,

and defendant’s motion for remand to the juvenile court for a 

transfer hearing should have been granted. 

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant and appellant Angelo Jacob 

Vasquez’s motion for transfer to juvenile court is reversed. On 

remand, the superior court is directed to issue a new order

remanding the matter to the juvenile court for a transfer hearing. 

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR: 

STRATTON, P. J. WILEY, J.