Court Opinion

ID: 9353805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 20:02:09.556648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:55.168992
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/12/23 P. v. Amezcua CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E079642

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FSB024827)

 CASIMIRO AMEZCUA,                                                       OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,

Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice

pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

         Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Defendant and appellant, Casimiro Amezcua, filed a petition for resentencing

pursuant to Penal Code former section 1170.95,1 which the court denied. After defendant

filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him.

       Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d

436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders),2 setting forth a

statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and one potentially arguable issue:

whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s petition.

       We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done. We affirm.

                 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3

       On November 27, 1999, in retaliation for a shooting that had occurred earlier that

day, defendant and a fellow gang member fired guns into a group of people associated

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
       Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended
and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

       2 In People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), the California
Supreme Court recently held that Wende and Anders procedures do not apply in appeals
from the denial of a section 1172.6 postjudgment petition. (Delgadillo, at pp. 225-226.)

       3  On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s opinions from
defendant’s appeal from the original judgment (People v. Amezcua (July 15, 2003,
E030954) [nonpub. opn.], his appeal from the judgment after this court’s reversal of his
original conviction (People v. Amezcua (June 20, 2008, E041865) [nonpub. opn.], and
defendant’s appeal from the denial of his first former section 1170.95 petition (People v.
Amezcua (Aug. 9, 2021, E075624) [nonpub. opn.] (Amezcua III). (Evid. Code, §§ 452,
459; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).) Defendant attached a portion of Amezcua II to
his petition for resentencing. Counsel for defendant on appeal references all three
opinions in her brief.
                                             2
with a rival gang. (Amezcua III, supra, E075624.) As a result, four individuals were

shot; one was killed; another was rendered paraplegic; a third, who was pregnant, lost the

child because of the shooting. (Ibid.)

       On retrial after reversal by this court, “a jury . . . found defendant guilty as charged

of one count of first degree murder (count 1) and three counts of attempted murder with

premeditation and deliberation (counts 2, 3, and 4). The jury also returned true findings

on gun use enhancements under . . . section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1), and

criminal street gang enhancements under . . . section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1), alleged

in connection with each count. The trial court, in turn, sentenced defendant to state

prison for a total term of 180 years to life.” (Amezcua III, supra, E075624.)

       On May 14, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former

section 1170.95, alleging he had been convicted of first degree murder pursuant to the

felony-murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine, and could not now be

so convicted. (Amezcua III, supra, E075624.) At the hearing on the petition, defense

counsel stipulated to the court’s consideration of the facts as recited in this court’s

opinion in Amezcua II. (Ibid.) The court found that “defendant was one of the two actual

shooters and, therefore, was either the actual killer or acting in concert and aiding and

abetting the actual killer, and by his actions of firing at the victims demonstrated he was

acting with intent to kill and demonstrating that he was acting in conscious disregard for

human life.” (Ibid.) Therefore, the court denied the petition. (Ibid.)

       Defendant appealed. By opinion filed August 9, 2021, we affirmed, holding, in

part, that defendant was per se ineligible for relief because he was, at minimum, a direct

                                              3
aider and abettor of the murder. (Amezcua III, supra, E075624.) We also reviewed the

jury instructions and noted “that on the murder charge, defendant was not tried under the

felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences theory; instead, the People

tried defendant as a direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor acting with malice

aforethought.” (Ibid.)

       On May 26, 2022, defendant filed another form petition for resentencing pursuant

to former section 1170.95; defendant requested appointment of counsel. This time,

defendant requested resentencing on his attempted murder convictions in addition to his

murder conviction.4

       The clerk’s office sent the court a “request for further action,” requesting the court

review the petition and advise them how to proceed. The clerk’s office noted the court

had previously ruled defendant ineligible for such relief.

       On July 1, 2022, the court denied the petition without appointing counsel for

defendant and without holding a hearing. The court noted: “This court previously denied

[defendant’s] 1170.95 petition after hearing where [defendant] was represented by

counsel. The court found [defendant] was not prosecuted on a felony-murder or natural

[and] probable consequence doctrine. The court found [defendant] actively participated

in the shooting of the victims, finding the [defendant] was a major participant acting

       4 Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats.
2021, ch. 551, § 2) amended former section 1170.95 to expand its coverage to individuals
convicted of “attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.”
(§ 1172.6, subd. (a).)
                                             4
[with] reckless disregard for life . . . . The Court of Appeal affirmed the court’s decision,

making the same findings . . . .”

                                     II. DISCUSSION

       Because our order of October 25, 2022, implied that we would independently

review the record for potential errors even if defendant chose not to file a supplemental

brief, we exercise our discretion to do so even though not required. (Delgadillo, supra,

14 Cal.5th at p. 230 [“[I]f the appellate court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to

conduct its own independent review of the record in the interest of justice.”]; id at p. 232

[“[I]t is wholly within the court’s discretion [to] conduct[] its own independent review of

the record in any individual section 1172.6 appeal.”] id. at p. 233, fn. 6 [“[T]he decision to

conduct independent review is solely up to the discretion of the Courts of Appeal . . . .].)

We find no arguable issues.

                                    III. DISPOSITION

       The order denying defendant’s petition is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                 McKINSTER
                                                                                             J.
We concur:

RAMIREZ
                        P. J.

MILLER
                           J.

                                              5