Court Opinion

ID: 9882334
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 20:03:55.145786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:15.797449
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/5/23 P. v. Murillo CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D081578

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD189155)

 JOAQUIN MURILLO,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Desiree Bruce-Lyle, Judge. Affirmed.
         Joaquin Murillo, in pro. per.; and Nicholas Seymour, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2005, a jury convicted Joaquin Murillo of willful, deliberate

premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664 & 187) and robbery
(§ 211). The jury also found Murillo personally discharged a firearm causing

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Murillo was sentenced to an
indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison.
      Murillo appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed the judgment
in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Murillo (Feb. 27. 2007, D046976).)
      In April 2022, Murillo filed a petition for resentencing under section
1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The court appointed counsel,
received briefing and considered the record of conviction, including the
information, the verdict forms and this court’s prior opinion. After a hearing
the court found Murillo was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The
court found Murillo was the sole perpetrator, and that he was the actual
shooter. The jury found Murillo acted with premeditation and deliberation
and that Murillo personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury.
The court determined Murillo had not stated a prima facie case for relief
under the statute and therefore denied the petition without issuing an order
to show cause.
      Murillo filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion and conduct an independent review of
the record in the same manner as we would do under the procedure outlined
in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We offered Murillo the
opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has filed a supplemental brief
which we will discuss below.
      The facts of the underlying offenses were discussed in our prior opinion.
We will not repeat them here.

                                        2
                                 DISCUSSION
       As we have noted, appellate counsel has asked the court to exercise its
discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review and in an effort to comply with Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified three possible issues that we
considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.
   1. Whether the trial court erred in relying on this court’s prior opinion for
the facts of the crime.
   2. Whether the trial court erred in concluding the verdicts conclusively
established Murillo had not stated a prima facie case for relief.
   3. Whether the trial court erred in finding the true finding on the firearm
enhancement conclusively rebutted Murillo’s statement of a prima facie case
for relief.
       Murillo’s personal brief does not actually identify any error by the trial
court in ruling on the petition. Instead, he argues first, he should not have
been convicted of premeditated attempted murder because he was intoxicated
at the time of the offense. He also argues the prosecutor should not have
charged him with the firearm enhancement because he was intoxicated at the
time of the offense.
       Murillo’s challenges to his underlying conviction are not relevant to
this appeal from an order denying his postjudgment petition for resentencing.
His conviction was upheld on direct appeal and the judgment has been final
for years. Murillo’s supplemental brief has not identified any potentially
meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
       We have independently reviewed the record for error consistently with
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious

                                        3
issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Murillo on
this appeal.
                               DISPOSITION
      The order denying Murillo’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                      4