Court Opinion

ID: 9409291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 17:04:49.43222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.791246
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/17/23 P. v. Abelar CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,                                                  2d Crim. No. B322412
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. TA108715)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County)

v.

JOSE LUIS ABELAR,

     Defendant and Appellant.

       Jose Luis Abelar appeals the denial of his petition for
resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1172.6.)1 We appointed counsel for
Abelar for this appeal. Counsel was unable to find any arguable
issues to brief and she filed an opening brief under People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Abelar filed a supplemental
brief. We conclude, among other things, that Abelar has not
shown the trial court erred by denying his petition. We affirm.
       In 2010, a jury convicted Abelar of first degree murder
(§ 187, subd. (a)) and attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664).

         1   All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The jury found Abelar personally and intentionally used and
discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death.
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b), (c) & (d).) The trial court sentenced him to
a term of 75 years to life in prison. (People v. Sanchez and Abelar
(Mar. 27, 2012, B227067) [nonpub. opn.]. ) On March 27, 2012, we
affirmed his conviction. (Ibid.)
       Abelar filed a petition for resentencing in 2022. The trial
court appointed counsel for him. The People filed an opposition
stating Abelar “was prosecuted as a perpetrator who acted with
actual malice and cannot avail himself of the relief” under the
resentencing statute. They said, “[T]he jury was not instructed
on felony murder, natural and probable consequences or any
other theory under which malice in imputed to a person based
solely on that person’s participation in a crime.” The court held a
hearing on the first stage of the resentencing petition.
       After taking the matter under submission, the trial court
denied his petition. It did not issue an order to show cause. The
court found Abelar was not eligible for resentencing because: 1)
he “was the actual killer,” 2) he was not convicted of murder on “a
theory of felony-murder” or a “theory of natural and probable
consequences,” and 3) his convictions were based “solely on him
having been an actual perpetrator who acted with actual malice.”
       The resentencing statute was enacted to provide relief for
certain defendants convicted of murder. But a defendant who
committed murder and was the “actual killer” is not eligible for
resentencing. (People v. Cornelius (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 54, 57.)
Abelar contends that his appellate counsel should be directed to,
among other things, brief additional issues. We have reviewed
this request and conclude from this record that he has not shown
that his appellate counsel was defective in any way.

                                 2
       Abelar contends, among other things, that the trial court
erred by denying his petition and it should have issued an order
to show cause. But Abelar has not cited to the record to support
his claims. (People v. Young (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 594, 608.) We
cannot rely on statements he makes in his brief that are not
supported by specific cites to the trial transcripts in the record.
(People v. Elkins (1992) 12 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4; see also People
v. Young, supra, 85 Cal.App.3d at p. 608.) Abelar has not shown
that the trial court’s findings were not supported by the record.
He has not shown the People’s opposition to his petition was
incorrect. He has not made any showing that the jury verdicts
were incorrect.
       The jury found, among other things, that Abelar
“personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which
proximately caused death to DANIEL RODGRIGUEZ,” and he
“personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, a handgun,
which caused great bodily injury to REGINALD BALL.” It found
his attempted murder “was willful, deliberate and premediated.”
                            DISPOSITION
       The order denying Abelar’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             YEGAN, J.               CODY, J.

                                 3
                    Teresa P. Magno, Judge

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

               ______________________________

     Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               4