Court Opinion

ID: 9950440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 23:03:07.558314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:09.192307
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/13/24 P. v. Calderon 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  B328858

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. PA033836)
         v.

ROLANDO CALDERON,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.
      Jeralyn Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
     In August 2001, a jury convicted defendant Rolando
Calderon of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664,
187, subd. (a))1, and found true the allegations that the
attempted murders were premeditated and deliberated (§ 664,
subd. (a)), a principal personally and intentionally discharged a
firearm inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) and
(e)(1)), a principal personally and intentionally discharged a
firearm (id., subds. (c) and (e)(1)), a principal personally used a
firearm (id., subds. (b) and (e)(1)), and the crimes were for the
benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd (b)(1)). The trial
court sentenced defendant to two consecutive life terms, a
consecutive term of 25 years to life, and a consecutive term of 20
years.
       On April 21, 2021, defendant filed a petition for
resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.952 (now section
1172.6). The trial court denied the petition and we affirmed the
denial on April 19, 2022. (People v. Calderon (Apr. 19, 2022,
B312516 [nonpub. opn.].)
       On July 18, 2022, defendant filed another petition for
resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed
counsel to defendant and following the filing of briefs, the court
denied the petition, finding that defendant was ineligible for
relief as a matter of law. Defendant now appeals from that order.

1     Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2     Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered
section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 with no change in text. (Stats.
2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Further references will be to the statute’s
current section number only.

                                 2
       On October 26, 2023, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an
opening brief in which she did not identify any arguable issues
and requested that we follow the procedures outlined in People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.
       On October 27, 2023, we notified defendant that appointed
appellate counsel had filed a brief that raised no issues and
defendant had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental
brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions,
or arguments that he wished this court to consider.
       On November 27, 2023, defendant filed a supplemental
brief, in which he contended that the jury was instructed on the
natural and probable consequences doctrine and complained
about his appointed appellate counsel. The record on appeal,
however, demonstrates that the jury was not instructed on the
natural and probable consequences doctrine. Indeed, this court
affirmed the denial of defendant’s prior section 1172.6 petition on
the grounds that defendant had not been convicted of attempted
murder under a natural and probable consequences theory.
Defendant therefore is not entitled to relief as a matter of law.
(See People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548.) As to
defendant’s arguments about his appointed counsel’s purported
performance, such arguments have no bearing on whether
defendant could “presently be convicted of murder or attempted
murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective
January 1, 2019.” (§1172.6, subd. (a)(3).) They therefore provide
no basis for reversal. (See People v. DeHuff (2021) 63
Cal.App.5th 428, 438.)

                                3
                        DISPOSITION

     The order denying the section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                         KIM, J.

We concur:

             MOOR, Acting P. J.

             LEE, J.

     Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                  4