Court Opinion

ID: 9907164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 20:02:47.219938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:33.889449
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/5/23 P. v. Samos 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                         B329949

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  (Los Angeles County
                                                                    Super. Ct. No.
         v.                                                         NA082655)

ANGEL SAMOS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      THE COURT:
      In an amended information filed by the Los Angeles County
District Attorney’s Office in 2012, defendant and appellant Angel
Samos was charged with the attempted murder of Sonia Tejada
(Tejada) (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)),1 the attempted
murder of Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Officer
Michael Montoya (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), the attempted murder
of LAPD Officer James Toma (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), carjacking

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.
(§ 215, subd. (a)), kidnapping for carjacking (§ 209.5, subd. (a)),
sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)), forcible
oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)), possession of a firearm by a
felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), shooting at an occupied motor vehicle
(§ 246), and two counts of assault on a peace officer with a
semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (d)(2)). Various firearm
enhancements were also alleged.
       Defendant pled no contest to the charge of being a felon in
possession of a firearm; a jury convicted him of the attempted
murder of Tejada, kidnapping for carjacking, shooting at an
occupied motor vehicle, and two counts of assault on a peace
officer with a semiautomatic firearm. The firearm allegations
tied to those counts were found true. (§ 12022.53, subds. (c) &
(d).) The jury found defendant not guilty of forcible oral
copulation and the attempted murder of Officer Toma. The jury
was unable to reach a verdict on the charges of carjacking, sexual
penetration by a foreign object, and the attempted murder of
Officer Montoya; those counts were subsequently dismissed in
the furtherance of justice. The trial court sentenced defendant to
an aggregate term of 66 years to life in state prison.
       This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People
v. Samos (Aug. 6, 2013, B239703) [nonpub. opn.], p. 12.)
       Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018
Reg. Sess.) substantively amended sections 188 and 189 to
“eliminate[] natural and probable consequences liability for
murder as it applies to aiding and abetting[] and limit[] the scope
of the felony-murder rule. [Citations.]” (People v. Lewis (2021)
11 Cal.5th 952, 957.) Now, a murder conviction “requires proof
that the defendant (1) was the actual killer (who acted with the
requisite express or implied malice), (2) directly aided and

                                  2
abetted the actual killer while acting with the intent to kill, or
(3) was a major participant in a felony who acted with reckless
indifference to the value of human life. [Citations.]” (People v.
Duran (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 920, 927 (Duran).) Senate Bill
No. 1437 also added what is now section 1172.6 (former
§ 1170.95),2 which provides “the statutory mechanism for
determining whether to retroactively vacate a final murder,
attempted murder, or manslaughter conviction that does not
comply with the new, narrower definitions” of murder. (Duran,
supra, at p. 927.)
       On April 29, 2022, defendant filed a petition for
resentencing under section 1172.6 and was appointed counsel.
The People filed an opposition to the petition.
       On March 22, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on
defendant’s petition for resentencing and denied it. According to
the minute order, the court “reviewed the verdicts and jury
instructions given” and found “as a matter of law that
[defendant] ha[d] not stated a prima facie case for resentencing.”
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
       Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in
connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record,
appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this
court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellate counsel also
encouraged us to use our discretion to independently review the
record.

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.

                                 3
       On October 2, 2023, we notified defendant that he had
30 days within which to personally submit a supplemental brief
or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or
arguments for us to consider. We also informed defendant that
his appeal could be dismissed if a supplemental brief or letter
was not timely filed. Defendant filed a supplemental letter on
October 19, 2023.
       We are not required to conduct an independent review of
the record for arguable issues and decline to exercise our
discretion to do so. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231–
232.) While we would typically evaluate the merits of arguments
presented in a supplemental brief or letter (see id. at p. 232), here
defendant has not set forth any arguments pertaining to the
March 22, 2023, order denying his section 1172.6 petition.
Instead, defendant’s letter describes his conduct while
incarcerated and how he has changed. He also contends that one
of his victims was not allowed to testify at the trial, that one of
the officers lied, and that the presiding judge was biased.
       Defendant has not presented us with any basis to reverse
the trial court’s denial of his section 1172.6 petition, which is the
only matter that we have jurisdiction to consider in this appeal.
Moreover, in his letter defendant admits, “I . . . [shot] an innocent
woman by name of Sonia Tejada.” “As the sole and actual
perpetrator of the attempted murder of [Tejada], defendant is
ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. [Citations.]”
(People v. Patton (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 649, 657, review granted
June 28, 2023, S279670; see also Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at
p. 233 [petitioner “not entitled to any relief under section 1172.6”
where “the record . . . makes clear that [he] was the actual killer

                                 4
and the only participant in the killing”].) The trial court thus
properly denied defendant’s petition.
                          DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

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

                                5