Court Opinion

ID: 9555155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-10 22:09:55.758099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:31.875003
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/10/23 P. v. Ochoa 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                        G062111

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 10CF0100)

 CHRISTOPHER RUDY OCHOA,                                               OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Elizabeth G.
Macias, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Erica Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                             *               *               *
              In 2016, Christopher Rudy Ochoa pleaded guilty to manslaughter,
attempted murder, a substantive gang crime, and related gang and firearm enhancements.
Ochoa admitted on a plea form, in part, “I willfully and unlawfully personally used a
firearm to kill Martin Herrera, a human being. I also willfully and unlawfully shot David
Frias, with the specific intent to murder him.” The trial court imposed an aggregate
sentence of 40 years in prison.
              In 2022, Ochoa filed a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition seeking to
dismiss his manslaughter and attempted murder convictions, and to be resentenced (now
                       1
Pen. Code, § 1172.6). The trial court denied the petition.
              Ochoa filed a notice of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel filed an
opening brief raising no arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).) Ochoa did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
              In the interests of justice, this court has reviewed the record and found no
arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 [“if the appellate
court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to conduct its own independent review of
the record in the interest of justice”].) Thus, we affirm the order of the trial court.

                                               I
                             PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
              In February 2016, Ochoa entered a guilty plea to manslaughter, attempted
murder, and a substantive gang offense. (§§ 192, subd. (a), 664, 187, 186.22, subd. (a).)
Ochoa admitted a personal use of a weapon enhancement, and a gang enhancement.
(§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) The court sentenced Ochoa to a total
aggregate sentence of 40 years in state prison.

1
 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The Legislature
renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change,
effective June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
                                               2
              In August 2022, Ochoa filed a postjudgment petition seeking to vacate his
manslaughter and attempted murder convictions and to be resentenced. (§ 1172.6.) The
prosecution filed a response, which included a copy of the abstract of judgment, the
information, and the felony plea form. In the factual basis of the felony plea form, Ochoa
admitted:
              “In Orange County, California, on 1-23-09, I willfully and unlawfully
personally used a firearm to kill Martin Herrera, a human being. I also willfully and
unlawfully shot David Frias, with the specific intent to murder him. I committed these
crimes while I was an active participant in 7th Street, a criminal street gang whose
members I knew have engaged in a pattern of criminal activity. I committed these
shootings in association with, for the benefit of, and at the direction of 7th Street with the
specific intent to promote, further, and assist in felony conduct by its members.”
              In December 2022, the trial court conducted a prima facie hearing and
denied Ochoa’s petition after reviewing the record of conviction: “The Court finds that
petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case for relief.” As to the manslaughter
conviction, the court found Ochoa “admitted that he personally used a firearm to kill
Martin Herrera.” As to the attempted murder conviction, the court found that Ochoa
“admitted to shooting David Frias with the specific intent to murder him.” Ochoa’s trial
counsel filed a notice of appeal on his behalf.

                                              II
                                       DISCUSSION
              When defendant’s counsel identifies no arguable issues on appeal, an
appellate court independently reviews the record for arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements.
First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That

                                              3
is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a
reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if
resolved favorably to 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.)
              Here, after independently reviewing the record, this court has similarly
found no arguable issues. The record establishes Ochoa was the actual killer as to the
manslaughter conviction, and Ochoa was the actual attempted killer as to the attempted
murder conviction. Thus, the trial court properly denied the petition under the relevant
provisions of section 1172.6. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961-970.)

                                             III
                                       DISPOSITION
              The trial court’s order denying Ochoa’s section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

                                                   MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

DELANEY, J.

                                              4