Court Opinion

ID: 9906327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 18:02:40.086289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:15.288851
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/1/23 P. v. Davila CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        G062295

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 03NF3266)

 SALVADOR MIRANDA DAVILA,                                              OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
              Salvador Miranda Davila appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing.
However, his appellate attorney was unable to find any arguable issues in the record, and
we have not detected any either. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order.
                                     BACKGROUND
              In 2004, appellant was convicted of second degree murder for beating his
two-year-old daughter to death. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life in
prison, and we affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Davila (Apr. 6, 2006,
G034763) [nonpub. opn.].)
              In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code
section 1172.6, formerly section 1170.95. Following a response by the People and a
hearing at which appellant was represented by appointed counsel, the trial court denied
the petition for failing to make a prima facie case.
            In this appeal, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but requesting
that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216. We informed appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief, however he
declined to do so. Exercising our discretion and in the interest of justice, we have
examined the entire record for any arguable issues. (See id. at p. 230.) But, that
examination has only confirmed our conclusion appellant’s petition was properly denied.
                                       DISCUSSION
             To be eligible for resentencing, a defendant must have been convicted of
murder under the felony murder rule, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or
some other theory under which malice was imputed to him based solely on his
participation in a crime. (Pen. Code, § 1172.6, subd. (a).) However, appellant was
convicted of murder for personally and maliciously causing his daughter’s death.
Because his jury was not instructed on any theory of imputed malice, he is ineligible for
resentencing as a matter of law. (People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 542, 548;
People v. Cortes (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 198, 205.) Therefore, the trial court rightly

                                              2
denied his petition at the prima facie stage of the proceedings. (People v. Strong (2022)
13 Cal.5th 698, 708; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971.) There is no arguable
basis for disturbing that decision.
                                      DISPOSTITION
               The trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.

                                                  BEDSWORTH, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.

                                              3