Court Opinion

ID: 9928103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 20:05:31.4725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:50.584268
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/30/24 P. v. Cruz CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                                          D081720

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCE309627)

DAVID CRUZ,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge. Affirmed.
         David Cruz, in pro. per.; and Cynthia Grimm, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2013, a jury convicted David Cruz of assault on a child with force
likely to produce great bodily injury, resulting in the death of the child (Pen.

Code,1 § 273ab, subd. (a)) and murder (§ 187, subd. (a)).

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
      Cruz was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the
assault conviction. The sentence on the second degree murder conviction was
stayed under section 654.
      Cruz appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished
opinion. (People v. Cruz (May 20, 2015, D065008).)
      In 2022, Cruz filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.
The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of
conviction, and held a hearing.
      The court found that Cruz had failed to state a prima facie showing for
relief under section 1172.6. The court found Cruz was not eligible for relief
under the statute as a matter of law.

      Cruz filed a timely notice of appeal.2
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief consistent with People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error as we
would if a brief were filed pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende). We notified Cruz he could submit his own brief on appeal.
      Cruz has responded with approximately 70-pages of material, the vast
bulk of which does not address any issues with regard to the propriety of the
order which denied his petition for resentencing. The focus of Cruz’s
submission is on his many claims of error in the original trial. He does
acknowledge he was convicted as the actual perpetrator and that the jury
was not instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder.

2     We discussed the facts of the offense in our prior decision. We will not
repeat them here.
                                        2
Cruz does argue the trial court should not have considered the factual
summary of the offense as contained in our original opinion.
                                DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and
asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the
court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two issues that were considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
      1. Whether the court erred in denying the petition for resentencing
without first issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary
hearing; and
      2. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in considering the factual
statement contained in our previous appeal.
      We have independently reviewed the record for error consistent with
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious
issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Cruz on
this appeal.

                                       3
                               DISPOSITION
      The order denying Cruz’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6
is affirmed.

                                                    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                      4