Court Opinion

ID: 9940661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 21:04:15.151502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:19.864525
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/14/24 P. v. Osegueda CA2/7
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

 THE PEOPLE,                                                B331955

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                        (Los Angeles County
                                                            Super. Ct. No. BA230279)
           v.

 SAMUEL OSEGUEDA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Deborah S. Brazil, Judge. Affirmed.
     Valerie G. Wass, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal; Samuel Osegueda, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                 _______________________
                       INTRODUCTION

       A jury convicted Samuel Osegueda in December 2007 on
one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1
two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated
murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)), and one count of
conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found
true the allegations that Osegueda personally and intentionally
discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death
(§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)) and that he committed the crimes
for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a
criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further,
or assist in criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22,
subd. (b)). We affirmed Osegueda’s convictions. (People v.
Osegueda (Apr. 13, 2010, B213246) [nonpub. opn.] (Osegueda I)
[2010 WL 1444638].)
       On June 16, 2023 the superior court denied Osegueda’s
petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former
section 1170.95) without issuing an order to show cause, ruling
Osegueda was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Osegueda
appealed.
       After reviewing the record, Osegueda’s appointed appellate
counsel filed a brief that did not identify any arguable issues.
After independently reviewing the record and the contentions
presented by Osegueda in his one-page supplemental brief, we
have not identified any either. Therefore, we affirm.

1     Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

      A. A Jury Convicts Osegueda of Murder
       One afternoon in April 2002 Bobby and Paul Martinez were
sitting on a bench in Trinity Park with Bobby’s girlfriend, Jennie,
and her three-year-old son.2 Trinity Park is between territory
controlled by two rival criminal street gangs, the Primera Flats
gang and the Ghetto Boyz gang. The gangs have a history of
violence between them, and both claimed Trinity Park as their
territory.
       As they sat on the bench, Osegueda, a member of the
Primera Flats gang, approached them with several other
Primera Flats gang members and asked: “Is there any Gummy
Bears right here in this park, because we’re not going to have
them in this park.”3 Bobby told his brother Paul, a member of the
Ghetto Boyz gang, not to say anything. Bobby said to Osegueda,
“Nobody is from nowhere.” Eventually, Osegueda and his fellow
gang members left.
       Later that evening, Paul was playing basketball at the
Trinity Park gym when two hooded men entered. Paul
recognized Osegueda and saw that Osegueda’s companion, Jose
Romano, was carrying a shotgun. Paul ran outside toward his
aunt’s house, and heard gun shots behind him.

2     The factual background is from the statement of facts in
the prior opinion in Osegueda’s direct appeal (Osegueda I, supra,
B213246).
3      Referring to the Ghetto Boyz as Gummy Bears was a sign
of disrespect.

                                3
      Once outside, Paul saw his brother Mario, also a member of
the Ghetto Boyz, sitting on a bench with Bobby, Jennie, and her
son. Paul told Mario to “watch out,” and Osegueda aimed his
weapon at Mario. Mario ran away in the same direction Paul had
run and heard four to seven shots. As Osegueda was shooting at
Mario, Jennie was frantically looking for her son. After finding
him “underneath” Osegueda’s gun, she pushed Osegueda, which
caused his hood to fall off, revealing his identity as one of the
shooters.
      Osegueda and Romano also fired their weapons multiple
times in Paul’s direction. An eight-year-old child was caught in
the crossfire and hit with a bullet; he died of a gunshot wound to
the chest. It was unclear whose weapon killed the child.
      The jury convicted Osegueda on all counts except assault
with a firearm. On the conspiracy conviction, the jury found
Osegueda committed four of the five alleged overt acts of
conspiracy, including that Osegueda or other members of the
Primera Flats gang went to Trinity Park to look for one or more
members of the Ghetto Boyz and that one or more of them shot at
Paul as he ran from the gym. The jury found not true the alleged
overt act that Osegueda entered the gymnasium with a firearm.
The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of
109 years to life.
      Osegueda appealed, and we affirmed. We rejected
Osegueda’s contentions that allowing a prosecution’s expert
witness to testify about Osegueda’s subjective intent and
expectations violated due process and that substantial evidence
did not support his conviction for conspiracy to commit murder.
(Osegueda I, supra, B213246.)

                                4
      B.     The Superior Court Denies Osegueda’s Petition for
             Resentencing
       On August 30, 2022 Osegueda, representing himself, filed a
petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 and asked the
superior court to appoint him counsel. The court appointed
counsel for Osegueda, and the People filed an opposition to the
petition for resentencing. The People argued Osegueda was
ineligible for relief because the jury found that he acted with the
intent to kill and that the trial court did not instruct the jury on
the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences
doctrine. Counsel for Osegueda filed a reply arguing that
Osegueda established a prima facie case for relief and that the
superior court should issue an order to show cause and hold an
evidentiary hearing.
       The superior court summarily denied the petition for
resentencing. The court stated that, “after reviewing the jury
instructions and the verdict forms, the court finds the jury was
not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, or any other theory of culpability in which
malice could be imputed to the petitioner. Therefore, [Osegueda]
is legally ineligible for relief pursuant to . . . section 1172.6.”
Osegueda filed a timely notice of appeal.

                          DISCUSSION

      We appointed counsel to represent Osegueda in his appeal
from the superior court’s order denying his petition. After
reviewing the record, counsel for Osegueda did not identify any
arguable issues. On December 8, 2023 counsel advised Osegueda
that she was filing a brief stating she was unable to find any

                                 5
arguable issues and that Osegueda could personally submit any
contentions he believed the court should consider. Appointed
counsel stated that she wrote Osegueda and explained her
evaluation of the record on appeal, that she informed Osegueda
he had the right to file a supplemental brief, and that this court
would dismiss the appeal if he did not file one. Counsel also
stated in her declaration she “sent appellant the transcripts of
the record on appeal and a copy of this brief.”
       On January 2, 2024 we received a one-page handwritten
supplemental brief from Osegueda. He stated that, though he
does not have the trial transcripts, he remembers that the jurors
were polled following the verdict and that they knew he “was not
involved in this crime, but . . . must have committed crimes in the
past.” He also asserted that Juror No. 6 wrote the trial judge
about “some wrongdoing in deliberating room.” Finally,
Osegueda asked whether “the fact the jury found [him] not guilty
for firing or possessing a gun and guilty for conspiracy to commit
murder” rendered him “ineligible for resentencing.”
       Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature enacted Senate
Bill No. 1437 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 participant in the underlying felony who acted with
reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1.)
“‘First, with certain exceptions, [Senate Bill No. 1437] narrowed
the application of the felony-murder rule by adding section 189,
subdivision (e) to the Penal Code. . . . [¶] Second, Senate Bill
No. 1437 imposed a new requirement that, except in cases of
felony murder, ‘a principal in a crime shall act with malice

                                  6
aforethought’ to be convicted of murder.’” (People v. Curiel (2023)
15 Cal.5th 433, 448-449.) “One effect of this requirement was to
eliminate liability for murder as an aider and abettor under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (Id. at p. 449.)
       Under section 1172.6 a defendant convicted of felony
murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine can challenge his or her murder conviction if he or she
“makes a ‘prima facie showing’ of entitlement to relief. . . . This,
in turn, requires a showing that, among other things, he ‘could
not presently be convicted of murder’ under the amendments to
the murder statutes that became effective on January 1, 2019.”
(People v. Arreguin (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 58, 62; see People v.
Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708.) Section 1172.6, however, does
not allow a petitioner to raise arguments that are not based on
changes made by Senate Bill No. 1437. (See People v. Burns
(2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 862, 865 [“Section 1172.6 does not create a
right to a second appeal.”]; People v. Farfan (2021)
71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [“The mere filing of a section [1172.6]
petition does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise
claims of trial error or attack the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury’s findings.”].) Thus, “a court may deny the
petition at the prima facie stage if the record of conviction
conclusively establishes that the petitioner was convicted on a
theory not affected by Senate Bill No. 1437.” (People v. Berry-
Vierwinden (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 921, 931.)
       Osegueda’s challenge to the jury findings does not implicate
the changes made by Senate Bill No. 1437. Osegueda was not
convicted on a theory of felony murder or under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine. While the trial court instructed
the jury on aiding and abetting, “Senate Bill No. 1437 did

                                 7
not change the law to prohibit direct aider and abettor liability on
an imputed malice theory.” (People v. Berry-Vierwinden, supra,
97 Cal.App.5th at p. 936.) Osegueda’s challenge to the jury’s
findings is not an argument he “could not presently be convicted
of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188
or 189” made by Senate Bill No. 1437. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).)
       Nor is there merit to Osegueda’s suggestion that he may be
eligible for resentencing because the jury found not true the overt
act allegation he had a firearm when he entered the gymnasium.4
The trial court instructed the jury that, to find Osegueda guilty of
conspiracy to commit murder, the jury had to find Osegueda
“intended to agree and did agree . . . to intentionally and
unlawfully kill.” (See People v. Ware (2022) 14 Cal.5th 151, 164
[conspiracy to commit murder “‘requires a finding of unlawful
intent to kill, i.e., express malice’”]; People v. Cortez (1998)
18 Cal.4th 1223, 1226 [same]; People v. Swain (1996) 12 Cal.4th
593, 607 [“conviction of conspiracy to commit murder requires a
finding of intent to kill”].) Given the jury’s finding on the
conspiracy charge, Osegueda is ineligible for relief under
section 1172.6. (See People v. Allen (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 389,
398 [superior court properly denied a petition under section
1172.6 where the jury instructions “told jurors that finding [the
defendant] conspired to commit murder required finding that he
had the intent to kill”].)

4     The assault with a firearm count the jury acquitted
Osegueda on was limited to whether Osegueda assaulted an
individual named Anthony Madrigal, the boyfriend of Paul’s
aunt, in the arm. (People v. Romano (Oct. 25, 2004, B168928)
[nonpub. opn.] [2004 WL 2378257].)

                                 8
      Because neither Osegueda nor his appellate counsel have
identified a cognizable legal issue, and our independent review
has not identified one either, the order denying his petition for
resentencing is affirmed. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232; see generally People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441-442.)

                         DISPOSITION

      The order denying Osegueda’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.

                                     SEGAL, Acting P. J.

      We concur:

                   FEUER, J.

                   MARTINEZ, J.

                                 9