Court Opinion

ID: 9378287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 21:03:12.809088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:20.018712
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/9/23 P. v. Guillen CA4/3

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                          G061650

           v.                                                            (Super. Ct. No. 09CF0684)

 MIGUEL LOPEZ GUILLEN,                                                   OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
M. Marc Kelly, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
              Defendant Miguel Lopez Guillen appeals from the denial of his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant
to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and
requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 (Anders), appointed counsel identified three issues to assist us in conducting our
independent review. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his
own behalf, but he has not done so. Although defendant has not filed a supplemental
brief, we exercise out discretion to conduct an independent review of the record and
appointed counsel’s Wende brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 215, 232.)
              We have examined the entire record and have not found an arguable issue
on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the postjudgment order.

                                          FACTS
              Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and attempted
murder in 2010. We affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v.
Guillen (Sep. 27, 2012, G045989).) The facts are set forth in that opinion. In 2020,
defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now
                      1
Pen. Code, § 1172.6), which the trial court summarily denied. We affirmed the trial
court’s denial in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Guillen (Oct. 1, 2020, G058957).)
As we noted in that opinion, the jury was not instructed on the felony-murder rule or the
natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Ibid.)
              In 2022, after the passage of legislation permitting resentencing petitions
challenging attempted murder convictions as well as convictions for murder, defendant
filed another petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. The trial court

              1
               Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was renumbered
section 1172.6 with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We shall use the
current Penal Code section number throughout our opinion.

                                             2
again summarily denied the petition, noting the jury had not been instructed on the
natural and probable consequences doctrine. Defendant timely appealed.

                                      DISCUSSION
             We have examined the record in accordance with the requirements under
Wende and Anders, and we find no arguable issues on appeal. Defendant himself has not
filed a supplemental brief raising any issues for our review. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.) The issues suggested by counsel have no merit.

                                     DISPOSITION
             The postjudgment order is affirmed.

                                                SANCHEZ, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.

                                            3