Court Opinion

ID: 9415712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:06:59.708506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:16.705593
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/2/23 P. v. Cuevas CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                                          D081672

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. CR20219)

JOHN CHARLES CUEVAS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed.
         John Charles Cuevas, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 1970, John Charles Cuevas pleaded guilty to first degree murder

(Pen. Code,1 § 187). In 2022, Cuevas filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a
hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Cuevas was

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
the actual killer of the victim, who he strangled to death. Because Cuevas
was the killer who acted alone in the relief under section 1172.6, the court
denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.
      Cuevas timely appealed from the denial of his petition.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court
to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error as we
would if People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) applied. We notified
Cuevas of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with
two submissions totaling almost 100 pages of argument and exhibits. As we
will discuss later, the material submitted does not address the merits of the
petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Notwithstanding the length
of the supplemental briefing, it does not identify any potentially meritorious
issues for reversal of the order in this case.
                           STATEMENT OF FACTS
      Cuevas admitted that on January 21, 1970, he strangled Debra F. to
death.
                                  DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to the
procedure established by Delgadillo and asks the court to independently
review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in
compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the
potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in finding
Cuevas had not stated a prima facie case for relief.

                                         2
      As we noted above, Cuevas has submitted lengthy supplemental briefs
including numerous exhibits. They do not discuss the denial of the petition
for resentencing under section 1172.6. The materials relate to the
indeterminate sentencing law, the amount of time he has been in prison (53
years). He contends he was told he would not serve more than 20 years when
he pleaded guilty. His basic contention is his imprisonment is excessive and
he should be released.
      We are aware of the length of his imprisonment and the arguments he
makes for relief. However, resentencing under section 1172.6 is not an open-
ended review of the petitioner’s entire history with the criminal justice
system. Rather, it provides an opportunity to address limited circumstances
where a petitioner may seek resentencing. Whatever the potential merits of
his many arguments might be, section 1172.6 is not the legal mechanism to
address such contentions.
      We have exercised our discretion and independently reviewed the
record for error in the same manner as we would under Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on
appeal. Competent counsel has represented Cuevas on this appeal.

                                       3
                              DISPOSITION
      The order denying Cuevas’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

KELETY, J.

                                     4