Court Opinion

ID: 9899450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 19:03:44.337249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:28.142464
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/16/23 P. v. Vega 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E081993

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. BAF1500138)

 SALVADOR GIL VEGA,                                                      OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Salvador Gil Vega, in pro. per.; Melanie L. Skehar, under appointment by the

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Defendant and appellant Salvador Gil Vega appeals from the trial court’s order

denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (formerly

section 1170.95). For the reasons set forth post, we affirm.

                             STATEMENT OF THE CASE

       On January 25, 2019, an amended information alleged that “defendant did

willfully, unlawfully, and with deliberation, premeditation and malice aforethought,

murder Robert Hearn, a human being,” under section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1). On

April 5, 2019, after a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder under section

187, subdivision (a), the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life with 1,475

days of credit for time served.

       On July 27, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.

On October 19, 2022, the People filed a request for the trial court to take judicial notice

of the jury instructions from the underlying case, defendant’s letter filed on September

28, 2022, and all files and records in the underlying case.2 On May 4, 2023, defense

counsel filed a “prima facie brief for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section

1172.6.” On July 6, 2023, defense counsel filed defendant’s “reply pursuant to Penal

Code section 1172.6.”

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

       2 There is no record of the trial court’s ruling on the request for judicial notice.
However, at the hearing on defendant’s section 1172.6 petition, the trial court stated that
it had “reviewed the jury instructions,” discussed the jury instructions given at
defendant’s trial, and read defendant’s letter into the record.

                                              2
       On August 18, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s petition. Prior to

denying defendant’s petition, the court expressed concern about defendant’s mental state

at the hearing because defendant made nonsensical statements and could not recall

sending a letter to the court.

       After questioning defendant, the prosecutor, and defense counsel, the trial court

took a “brief pause.” After resuming the hearing, the court stated that a prima facie

hearing at a section 1172.6 hearing was “a habeas-like hearing” and, as such, “defendant

does not even have a right to be personally present for the PRMC—well, for the prima

facie hearing. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] I am confident the defendant has an absolute right to be at

an order to show cause hearing. I am fairly confident the defendant does not have a right

to be present for the prima facie hearing. For that reason I am making no statement as to

whether or not I entertain a doubt as to the gentleman’s competence to stand trial.” The

court then proceeded “on the merits of the prima facie analysis.”

       After hearing argument by both defense counsel and the prosecutor, the court

stated: “I have already recited the instructions that were given. The jury returned a

verdict of murder in the first degree. There was only one instructional vehicle for them to

reach murder in the first degree, and that was through willful, deliberate, and

premeditated murder. There were no instructions that run afoul of the changes to

[sections] 188 and 189 that occurred on January 1st of 2019.[3]

       3 At the beginning of the hearing, the court stated that the following pertinent
instructions were given at defendant’s trial: CALCRIM Nos. 500 (general principles of
homicide); 520 (elements of first and second degree murder with malice aforethought);
                                                                   [footnote continued on next page]

                                               3
        “The defendant’s averments that he could not be convicted under the law of

murder as it exists post-January 1st, 2019, are absolutely refuted by the instructions that

were given. Because every instruction that was given survives after the changes to

[sections] 188 and 189 after January 1st of 2019. The defendant is statutorily ineligible

for relief.

        “[Defendant’s] chief complaint is that it was self-defense. His only remedy for

that is an appellate remedy, to appeal the verdict as unsupported by the facts. It is not a

petition pursuant to what was 1170.95 and what now is 1172.6 because the instructions

that were given were all valid instructions. The only theory under which the jury could

have convicted him is a theory that is still a valid theory, and for those reasons the

petition is denied.”

        On August 21, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his

section 1172.6 petition.

521 (willful, deliberate, and premeditated theory of first degree murder); 522 (effect of
provocation to reduce murder from first to second); 570 (heat of passion); 571 (imperfect
self-defense); 505 (justifiable homicide—perfect self-defense); 3471 (right of self-
defense, mutual combat or initial aggressor); 3472 (right to self-defense may not be
contrived); and 640 (“a Stone instruction”).

                                              4
                                       DISCUSSION

         Counsel has filed a supplemental brief under the authorities of People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 739, and People v.

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). In the brief, pursuant to Anders, appellate

counsel has identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for

error:

         1.    “Whether [defendant] was mentally capable of understanding what was

occurring and, if not, would any incompetence affect the determination of no imputed

malice to require an evidentiary hearing?”

         2.    “Whether [defendant] is mentally capable of responding meaningfully to

this Court’s invitation to submit a supplemental brief?”

         On October 10, 2023, we sent notice to defendant regarding the filing of a

supplemental brief, as follows: “Counsel for appellant has filed a brief stating no

arguable issues can be found. Because this is an appeal from the denial of a post-

conviction proceeding, this court is not required to conduct an independent review of the

record but may do so in its discretion. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Ca1.5th 216 [];

People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Ca1.App.4th 496.) The appellant is personally granted 30

days to file any supplemental brief deemed necessary. If appellant files a supplemental

brief, this court will evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief in its opinion.

(Delgadillo, [at p. 216].) Failure to timely file a supplemental brief may result in the

dismissal of the appeal as abandoned.”

                                              5
       On October 16, 2023, defendant filed a one-page handwritten supplemental brief

challenging the underlying murder conviction. In the brief, defendant wrote: “I have a

rule 4.423(a)(2)[.] [T]he victim was an initiator of, willing participant in, or aggressor or

provoker of the incident. [¶] I got sentenced to first degree, my rule stands he started a

fight with me. I’m not going to stand for it, get it right[,] what can be done about it?”

       Four days later, on October 20, 2023, defendant filed a second one-page

supplemental brief, which again challenged his underlying conviction: “Robert Hearn

was the one that started a fight with me[.] I was takeing [sic] hits from him first multiple

blunt force injurys [sic] but was not bean [sic] to death. In fact what was the murder

weapon cause I don’t know do you?”

       This appeal, however, is an appeal of the denial of defendant’s section 1172.6

petition, and not an appeal from his underlying conviction.

       After defendant filed his supplemental briefs, on October 26, 2023, appellate

counsel filed a supplemental brief on behalf of defendant asking this court to conduct an

independent review because defendant is not capable of drafting a supplemental brief.

       Based on the above and our independent review of the record, we find that the jury

found defendant guilty of first degree murder, and “[t]here was only one instructional

vehicle for them to reach murder in the first degree, and that was through willful,

deliberate, and premeditated murder[,]” as the direct perpetrator. Therefore, the trial

court correctly determined defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.

(Delgadillo, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 233.)

                                              6
                                    DISPOSITION

      The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is

affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                      MILLER
                                                                            Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
                               J.

MENETREZ
                               J.

                                           7