Court Opinion

ID: 9865582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:04:26.787328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:30.851827
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/25/23 P. v. Oliveira 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.B328292
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. VA053200)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County)

v.

FERNANDO OLIVEIRA,

     Defendant and Appellant.

       Fernando Oliveira appeals an order denying his petition for
resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1172.6.)1 In 1999, Oliveira was
convicted of attempted second degree murder, mayhem, and
spousal battery, with findings that he personally used a firearm
and inflicted great bodily injury. (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 203,
273.5, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.7,
subd. (a).) He was sentenced to 34 years to life in prison. The
trial court denied his 2022 petition for resentencing without
issuing an order to show cause for an evidentiary hearing.

         1   All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
       We appointed counsel for Oliveira for this appeal. Counsel
filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216,
stating he was unable to brief any arguable issues. Oliveira filed
a supplemental brief and claims the trial court erred because he
made a prima facie showing for the issuance of an order to show
cause. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did
not err. We affirm.
                               FACTS
       Oliveira and his wife Maria were married for 21 years.
Oliveira frequently abused his wife. He had threatened to kill
her and the children. To avoid Oliveira’s abuse, Maria frequently
stayed with Maria’s mother.
       During the afternoon of May 7, 1998, Oliveira was drinking
and angry. That evening, Maria went to the family home alone to
determine Oliveira’s mood. She unlocked the front door and
quietly opened it to prevent awakening him. She walked toward
the bedroom to see if Oliverira was asleep. As she neared the
room, she heard a noise and fell backward onto the floor.
Oliveira had shot Maria in the neck. Olivera instructed his
daughters not to call the police.
                           DISCUSSION
       Oliveira claims he could not be convicted of attempted
murder because of changes to the law required by Senate Bill No.
1437 (2017-2018 Reg.Sess). We disagree.
       “Senate Bill 1437 ‘amend[s] the felony murder rule and the
natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to
murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a
person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to
kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who
acted with reckless indifference to human life.’ ” (People v.

                                2
Gutierrez-Salazar (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 411, 417.) In 2021, the
Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 775 (2021 Reg. Sess.). It
allowed defendants convicted of attempted murder to file
resentencing petitions. (People v. Hurtado (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th
887, 891.) But relief is not available to defendants convicted of
attempted murder who are the actual shooters. (Id. at p. 893.)
      Here the trial court’s instruction to the jury on attempted
murder did not include the natural and probable consequences
doctrine, an instruction on felony murder, or an instruction
allowing the jury to impute malice. It required the jury to find
Oliveira had “a specific intent to kill” and find that he “harbored
express malice aforethought.” After finding Oliveira guilty of
attempted second degree murder, the jury also found he
“personally and intentionally discharged a firearm.”
      In denying his 2022 resentencing petition, the trial court
found Oliveira was not “eligible for resentencing, because he was
the actual shooter of his wife.” Oliveira has not cited to the
record to challenge this finding. Nor has he shown any
instructional error on attempted murder or any instruction that
would ask jurors to impute malice. “As the attempted murderer,
[Oliveira] is ‘ineligible for relief’ as ‘a matter of law.’ ” (People v.
Hurtado, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at p. 893.)

                                   3
                        DISPOSITION
      The order denying Oliveira’s resentencing petition is
affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             BALTODANO, J.

             CODY, J.

                                4
                 Maria Andrea Davalos, Judge

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

                ______________________________

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

                               5