Court Opinion

ID: 9895973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 23:04:08.544127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:09.901264
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/8/23 P. v. Arrellano CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,                                             B326453

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                      (Los Angeles County
                                                         Super. Ct. No. BA252095)
          v.

 MARCOS RUIZ ARRELLANO,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke II, Judge. Affirmed.
      John Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
       In December 2001, Marcos Ruiz Arrellano (defendant)
repeatedly stabbed another man to death at a birthday party. A
jury later convicted him of first degree murder, and the trial
court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. In an
unpublished decision, a different panel of this Court affirmed the
conviction on direct appeal. (People v. Arrellano (Jan. 6, 2006,
B180408) [nonpub. opn.] (Arrellano I).)
       Many years later, defendant petitioned for resentencing
pursuant to former Penal Code section 1170.95, now codified at
Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court appointed counsel for
defendant and held a hearing to consider whether he stated a
prima facie case for relief. The court found he had not, reasoning
defendant had been prosecuted as the victim’s actual killer and
his jury had not been instructed on felony murder, the natural
and probable consequences doctrine, or any other theory of
imputed malice.
       Defendant appealed, and this court appointed counsel to
represent him. After examining the record, defendant’s attorney
found no arguable issues to raise and filed an opening brief
pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. We
invited defendant to submit a supplemental brief and he has done
so.
       Defendant’s contentions, all of which concern errors made
prior to or at his criminal trial, fall into two categories:
arguments which were raised and resolved previously in
Arrellano I, and arguments that were not (e.g., an apparent claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel and a contention concerning

1
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.

                                2
fingerprint evidence on a bottle of tequila). Because none of these
arguments bear on whether he could “presently be convicted of
murder . . . because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made
effective January 1, 2019” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3)), they provide no
basis for reversal. (People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428,
438 [section 1172.6 “does not permit a petitioner to establish
eligibility on the basis of alleged trial error”].) Defendant’s
citation to In re Lopez (2023) 14 Cal.5th 562 is unavailing
because that case concerns “alternative-theory” error and here
defendant’s jury was instructed only on one theory, malice
aforethought.

                        DISPOSITION
      The order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is
affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                       BAKER, Acting P. J.
We concur:

      MOOR, J.

      KIM, J.

                                 3