Court Opinion

ID: 9390023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 18:03:04.423864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.446414
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. Alarcon CA2/4
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                 B322660

             Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       (Los Angeles County
                                                                             Super. Ct. No. KA092630)
             v.

 GONZALO ALARCON,

             Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Juan C. Dominguez, Judge. Affirmed.
     Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Respondent.
                       INTRODUCTION
      Appellant Gonzalo Alarcon appeals the superior court’s
denial of his petition to for relief under former Penal Code
section 1170.95 (current Penal Code section 1172.6), in
which appellant sought to vacate his 2011 conviction for
willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder.
After his appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no
issues, appellant filed a supplemental brief asserting various
flaws and infirmities at his original trial and sentencing,
without assigning error to the superior court’s ruling on his
petition. Appellant further argues his appellate counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issues
he identifies in his supplemental brief.
      In postconviction appeals from the denial of a Penal
Code section 1172.6 petition in which counsel finds no
arguable issues, an appellate court need not independently
review the record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216, 232.) If the defendant subsequently files a
supplemental brief, the court is required to evaluate only the
arguments presented in that brief. (Ibid.) Given that
appellant fails to address the issues relevant to his petition
below, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling on it.
Appellant’s challenges to the conduct of his original trial and
sentencing are not cognizable in this appeal. (See People v.
Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [“The mere filing of a
[prior Penal Code] section 1170.95 petition does not afford
the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error
or attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s

                                2
findings”].) And his appellate counsel could not have
rendered deficient performance by failing to raise meritless
issues on appeal. (Cf. People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692,
732 [“‘Counsel may not be deemed incompetent for failure to
make meritless objections’”].)

                      DISPOSITION
      The superior court’s order is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                       DAUM, J. *

We concur:

COLLINS, J.                                CURREY, Acting P.J.
*     Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to Article VI, section 6, of the California
Constitution.

                                  3