Court Opinion

ID: 9363921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 21:01:52.504468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.852136
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/17/23 P. v. Rodarte CA2/3

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 Ca l ifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
 o p inions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This
 o p inion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                        SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                  B320032

        Plaintiff and Respondent,                             Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. TA088727
        v.

 RICARDO CONTRERAS
 RODARTE,

        Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Pat Connolly, Judge. Affirmed.
     Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                            INTRODUCTION

       Defendant Ricardo Contreras Rodarte filed a petition for
resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95.2 The trial court
summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel and
without issuing an order to show cause. Defendant appeals from
the March 24, 2022 order denying his resentencing petition, and
his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined
in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. By letter dated
November 8, 2022, we gave defendant 30 days to submit
additional briefing or a letter stating any grounds for an appeal,
or contentions, or arguments which he wishes this court to
consider. To date he has not done so. After reviewing the record
in this appeal, we find no appealable issue. Accordingly, we
affirm the order.

                             BACKGROUND

      A detailed recitation of the facts is provided in this court’s
prior opinion. (People v. Rodarte et al. (Oct. 6, 2010, B209233)
[nonpub. opn.] (Rodarte).) In sum, on January 12, 2007,
defendant got out of a truck and walked towards Andrew Avalos
and Michael Avalos with a gun in his hand. When defendant was
15 feet away from them, he pointed the gun at them and started
walking towards them. Andrew and Michael fled into an alley,
and defendant fired shots at them. Andrew was hit twice in the
leg and fell down. Defendant moved into the alley while shooting

1   All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered as section
1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                     2
at Andrew and Michael. After Andrew told defendant to stop
shooting at Michael, defendant shot Andrew. When Michael was
lying on his side, defendant approached him, stood over him, and
shot him two or three times in the head. Andrew told defendant
to leave Michael alone. Defendant then fired multiple shots at
Andrew, hitting him in the chest and left hand. Michael was
mortally wounded and died shortly after the shooting. Andrew
suffered seven gunshot wounds but survived the shooting.
Andrew positively identified defendant as the person who shot
him and Michael.
        In 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree
murder for killing Michael Avalos (§ 187, subd. (a)). The jury
found true the allegations that defendant killed the victim by
means of lying in wait, personally used a firearm, personally and
intentionally discharged a firearm, and personally and
intentionally discharged a firearm which caused the victim’s
death (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)). The
jury also found defendant guilty of the attempted murder of
Andrew Avalos (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)). As to this victim, the jury
found true the allegations that the attempted murder was willful,
deliberate and premeditated, and that defendant personally used
a firearm, personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, and
personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which caused
great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)).
        In Rodarte, this court modified defendant’s sentence as
follows: defendant was sentenced to a single term of life without
the possibility of parole for the murder conviction, plus 25 years
to life under section 12022.53, subdivision (d); defendant was
sentenced to a consecutive term of life with the possibility of
parole, plus 25 years to life under section 12022.53, subdivision

                                  3
(d), for the attempted murder conviction; the remaining
enhancements were stayed.
       On February 1, 2022, defendant petitioned for resentencing
under section 1170.95. In his form petition, defendant checked
boxes indicating: (1) a complaint, information or indictment had
been filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed
under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which
malice is imputed to him; (2) he was convicted of murder,
attempted murder, or manslaughter; and (3) he could not now be
convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to
sections 188 and 189. Defendant also asked the court to appoint
counsel for him during the resentencing process.
       On March 24, 2022, the trial court summarily denied the
petition without appointing counsel for defendant. After
reviewing the court file, the court determined that defendant
“was the actual killer and was not convicted under a theory of
felony-murder of any degree, or a theory of natural and probable
consequences. There is no jury instruction for aiding and
abetting, felony murder, or natural and probable consequences.”
It also determined that the opinion in Rodarte reflects that
defendant was the actual killer and was convicted on a theory of
being the direct perpetrator.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

                         DISCUSSION

      Following the Wende guidelines, we have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the record in this appeal. We discern no
arguable issue.
      Based on defendant’s petition, the trial court was required
to appoint counsel and allow the parties to file briefs before

                                4
considering the record of conviction. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11
Cal.5th 952, 957, 962–963, 971–972.) That said, we find the
failure to appoint counsel and permit briefing to be harmless
because there is no evidence in the record that the jury was
instructed on felony murder, the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, aiding and abetting, or any other theory
under which malice could be imputed to defendant based on his
participation in the crimes. (See § 1172.6, subd. (a) [“A person
convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which
malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s
participation in a crime, attempted murder under the natural
and probable consequences doctrine, or manslaughter may file a
petition with the court” to have the conviction vacated].) The jury
also found true the lying in wait and personal gun use allegations
(§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)). The record
therefore shows that defendant was convicted as Michael Avalos’s
actual killer, and of directly attempting to kill Andrew Avalos.
Because he is statutorily ineligible for relief, it is not reasonably
probable that if defendant had been afforded assistance of
counsel and the ability to file briefing, he would have avoided
summary denial of his petition.

                                  5
                       DISPOSITION

    The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                     LAVIN, J.
WE CONCUR:

    EDMON, P. J.

    EGERTON, J.

                             6