Court Opinion

ID: 9895560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-07 19:03:36.082688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:31.805107
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/7/23 P. v. Zinchenko CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                 B329592

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                            Super. Ct. No. BA221557)
         v.

ALEXANDER ZINCHENKO,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      THE COURT:
      Defendant and appellant Alexander Zinchenko appeals
from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under
Penal Code section 1172.61 (former § 1170.95).2

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

2     Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
For simplicity, we refer to the section by its new numbering.
       Defendant’s appointed counsel found no arguable issues
and filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). Under the standard articulated in Delgadillo, we
decline counsel’s invitation to undertake an independent review
of the record. Instead, we evaluate the arguments that defendant
raises in his letter brief. (Delgadillo, supra, at pp. 231–232.)
Finding none of his arguments meritorious, we affirm.
         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.     The Conviction and Sentence
       A jury convicted defendant of conspiracy (count 6),
attempted murder (count 7), and assault with a deadly weapon
(count 8). As to count 7, the jury found true that the crime was
committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation within
the meaning of section 664. As to counts 7 and 8, the jury found
true the allegation that defendant personally used a knife
(§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury
on his victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). On May 29, 2003, he was
sentenced to a term of 25 years to life on count 6. The trial court
imposed a term of life imprisonment as to count 7 and stayed this
term pursuant to section 654. As to count 8, the trial court
imposed a term of three years in state prison, plus one year for
each enhancement; this sentence was stayed as well.
II.    Petition for Resentencing
       On September 30, 2018, the Governor signed Senate Bill
No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Sen. Bill 1437) in order to
“amend 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

                                 2
participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless
indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)
        Effective January 1, 2019, Sen. Bill 1437 added former
section 1170.95, subdivision (a), creating a procedure whereby a
person convicted of, as relevant here, “murder under . . . [any]
theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on
that person’s participation in a crime, [or] attempted murder
under the natural and probable consequences doctrine,” but who
could not now be convicted, can petition to have the murder
conviction vacated and to be resentenced. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015,
§ 4.) Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022
Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.6 to include convictions of
“attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.)
        In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court denied his petition,
and defendant appealed. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 15 Cal.5th at page 231
raising no issues.
        On August 8, 2023, we notified defendant of his counsel’s
brief and gave him leave to file his own brief or letter stating
grounds for appellate relief. After being granted an extension of
time, on September 21, 2023, defendant filed a letter brief with
exhibits.
                           DISCUSSION
        In his lengthy supplemental brief, defendant provides us
with a detailed summary of his personal background and journey
to the United States. He also sets forth a host of arguments,
including, but not limited to: (1) false evidence was presented at
trial; (2) he never intended to stab the victim (the assault was

                                  3
accidental); (3) he was provoked and his family was threatened,
and therefore he could avail himself of the provocative act
doctrine; and (4) the trial court committed numerous evidentiary
and instructional errors. Finally, he offers us a list of certain
constitutional amendments, legal principles, California statutes,
and case authority, presumably in support of his contention that
he should be resentenced.3 The problem is that neither the legal
authority cited nor the arguments offered entitles defendant to be
resentenced under section 1172.6.4 As the statute plainly
provides, only defendants convicted of attempted murder under
the natural and probable consequences doctrine are entitled to
resentencing relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(1); People v. Coley (2022)
77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548.) Because defendant has not
demonstrated or argued that he was convicted of attempted
murder under this theory, he is ineligible for relief.5 (Ibid.)

3    To the extent defendant challenges his conviction, i.e., the
elements of conspiracy were not proven, that is not the issue
pending in this appeal.

4     In fact, former section 1170.95 is only mentioned on page
154 of defendant’s supplemental brief.

5      We applaud defendant’s educational and self-help
certificates, as well as his laudatory progress reports and
chrono’s.

                                 4
                        DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J.      ASHMANN-GERST, J.            HOFFSTADT, J.

                             5