Court Opinion

ID: 9409288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 17:04:49.029452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.122958
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/17/23 P. v. Sims CA3
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C089527

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                         (Super. Ct. No.
                                                                                  STK-CR-FE-19960006158,
           v.                                                                          SC060460A )

 JAMES SIMS,                                                                      OPINION ON TRANSFER

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         In 1996, a jury found defendant James Sims guilty of second degree murder and
found true the firearm use allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 19
years to life in prison.

                                                             1
       In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1
section 1172.6.2 The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, finding
defendant was not entitled to relief as a matter of law because he was the actual killer and
he was not tried under a felony-murder or aiding and abetting theory.
       Defendant appealed the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing.
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief
setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the record and
determine whether there were any arguable issues on appeal, in accordance with
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant failed to file a supplemental brief and
we dismissed the appeal as abandoned.
       The Supreme Court granted review and later transferred the matter back to us with
directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of its recent opinion in
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. We sent defendant a letter notifying him of
his obligations under Delgadillo.
       Defendant filed a supplemental brief, arguing: (1) the trial court gave misleading
jury instructions during his original trial; (2) he is entitled to relief under section 1385
due to his youthfulness at the time of the crime; and (3) his appointed counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by failing to address these two issues on appeal. We have
considered defendant’s arguments and will affirm the trial court’s order.
       First, we decline to consider any alleged errors in the jury instructions. Section
1172.6 “does not permit a petitioner to establish eligibility on the basis of alleged trial

1      Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2      Defendant filed his petition under former section 1170.95. Effective June 30,
2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 with no
substantive change in the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) As such, we refer to the
current section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

                                               2
error.” (People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438.) “ ‘The purpose of section
[1172.6] is to give defendants the benefit of amended sections 188 and 189 with respect
to issues not previously determined, not to provide a do-over on factual disputes that have
already been resolved.’ ” (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947.)
       Second, we disagree that the trial court may resentence defendant under section
1385. Unlike section 1172.6, section 1385 does not establish a mechanism to reopen
sentencing proceedings. Instead, it merely provides the trial court with a list of
considerations to apply whenever it sentences a defendant. (§ 1385, subd. (c).) Because
the trial court found that defendant was not entitled to resentencing under section 1172.6,
it had no occasion to apply the provisions of section 1385.
       Having rejected defendant’s jury instruction and section 1385 claims, we find no
ineffective assistance of counsel. (See People v. Lucero (2000) 23 Cal.4th 692, 732
[“ ‘Counsel may not be deemed incompetent for failure to make meritless objections’ ”].)
                                      DISPOSITION
       The order is affirmed.

                                                  /s/
                                                  ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
DUARTE, J.

/s/
MESIWALA, J.

                                             3