Court Opinion

ID: 9905562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 18:04:37.539896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:43.941251
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/29/23 P. v. Ortiz CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E081820

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF72650)

 JOSE LUIS ORTIZ,                                                        OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Ronda G. Norris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Defendant and appellant Jose Luis Ortiz filed a petition for resentencing pursuant

to Penal Code section 1172.6,1 which the court denied. After defense counsel filed a

notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.

       Counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216

(Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case, requesting that we independently

review the record for error, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the

court erred in determining that defendant had failed to make a prima facie case for relief.

       This court offered defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief,

which he has done.2 Defendant alleges that he is not guilty of the attempted murder

conviction of which the jury convicted him, that he is no longer the same person he was

when the jury convicted him, that he has served the amount of prison time that he

deserved, and that he is now someone “who would be a benefit to society.” Defendant

requests that we appoint him counsel, that we look “deeply at [his] issues,” and that he be

resentenced. We affirm.

       1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.

       2 “If the defendant . . . files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is
required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written
opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

                                              2
                     I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3

       In a dispute between a friend and the victim over an air compressor, defendant

showed his support for his friend by shooting at the victim with an assault rifle. Out of

the 13 or so bullets defendant fired, three struck the victim. The victim lived, but lost

most of the use of his right arm and hand. (Ortiz, supra, E021315.)

       On August 21, 1997, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted first degree

murder (§§ 664, 187, count 1) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021,

subd. (a)(1), count 3). The jury additionally found true allegations that defendant

personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily

injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) in the count 1 offense. The court thereafter found true

allegations defendant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)) and

prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12). The court sentenced defendant

to a term of imprisonment of 68 years to life. (Ortiz, supra, E021315.)

       Defendant appealed contending defense counsel rendered constitutionally

ineffective assistance by failing to object to certain items of evidence, that the court erred

by admitting an unavailable witness’s preliminary hearing testimony, that the court erred

in failing to instruct on accomplice testimony, and that the court erred by imposing a

separate sentence for his count 3 offense. This court rejected all defendant’s arguments.

(Ortiz, supra, E021315.)

       3 We take judicial notice of our prior opinion from defendant’s appeal from the
original judgment. (People v. Ortiz (Mar. 17, 1999, E021315) [nonpub. opn.].) We take
our factual recitation from Ortiz.

                                              3
       However, the People pointed out a sentencing error. Thus, this court modified the

sentence to 48 years to life and affirmed the judgment as modified. (Ortiz, supra,

E021315.)

       On February 21, 2023, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to

section 1172.6. At a prima facie hearing on July 28, 2023, counsel for the People noted

they had obtained the court file, including all the jury instructions that they had given to

defense counsel: “Aiding and abetting was given in this case, but only directly [] aiding

and abetting. No natural and probable consequences theory, no felony murder theory,

and there was no other theory by which malice could be imputed to the defendant, such

as uncharged conspiracy, conspiracy to commit an offense other than murder, or implied

malice, group beating, things of that nature. No theory by which malice could be

imputed to the defendant from any other individual was given.”

       Defense counsel responded, “I have had a chance to read and review the jury

instructions. I’ll submit.” The trial court asked of defense counsel, “do you agree with

[the People’s] characterization of those jury instructions?” Defense counsel responded,

“Yes. He is accurate.” The court denied the petition.

                                     II. DISCUSSION

       Defendant alleges that he is not guilty of the attempted murder conviction of

which the jury convicted him, that he is no longer the same person he was when the jury

convicted him, that he has served the amount of prison time that he deserved, and that he

is now someone “who would be a benefit to society.” Defendant requests that we appoint

                                              4
him counsel, requests that we look “deeply at [his] issues,” and requests that he be

resentenced. We affirm.

       “Senate Bill [No.] 1437 [(2017-2018 Reg. Sess.)] significantly limited the scope of

the felony-murder rule to effectuate the Legislature’s declared intent ‘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.’” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708.)

       “When the trial court receives a petition containing the necessary declaration and

other required information, the court must evaluate the petition ‘to determine whether the

petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief.’ [Citations.] If the petition and record

in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court

may dismiss the petition.” (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708.)

       Here, defendant failed to make a prima facie case for relief below. Moreover,

none of the “issues” defendant raises are cognizable on appeal from the denial of a

section 1172.6 petition. We already appointed counsel for defendant, who determined

there were no “viable issues” to be raised on appeal. Thus, we affirm the order denying

defendant’s petition.

                                               5
                                 III. DISPOSITION

     The court’s order dismissing the petition is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                              McKINSTER
                                                                          Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
                        J.

RAPHAEL
                        J.

                                           6