Court Opinion

ID: 9409290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-17 17:04:49.314567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:49.790250
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/17/23 P. v. Alhimidi 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D080865

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCE325289)

 KASSIM ALHIMIDI,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Frank L. Birchak, Judge. Affirmed.
         Kassim Alhimidi, in pro. per.; and Denise M. Rudasill, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2014, a jury convicted Kassim Alhimidi of first degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found he had personally used a deadly weapon in
the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Alhimidi was sentenced
to an indeterminate term of 26 years to life in prison.

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
      Alhimidi appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an
unpublished opinion. (People v. Alhimidi (Nov. 24, 2015, D066515).)
      In 2022, Alhimidi filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.
The trial court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of
conviction, and held a hearing. The court determined Alhimidi was
prosecuted as the actual killer of the victim and that he personally used a
deadly weapon to commit the offense.
      The court also determined the jury was not instructed on aiding and
abetting, felony murder or natural and probable consequences. The court
found Alhimidi was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6.
Accordingly, the court denied the petition without issuing an order to show
cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.
      Alhimidi 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 meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this
court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error
consistent with the procedure described in People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Alhimidi of his right to file his own brief on
appeal. He has responded by filing a brief which does not discuss any issues
relevant to the denial of the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.

We will discuss the supplemental brief later in this opinion.2
                                 DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel asks the court to independently
review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and

2     The facts of the offense are discussed at length in our prior opinion. We
see no purpose in repeating that discussion here.
                                       2
in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential
merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying the petition for
resentencing without issuing an order to show cause and holding an
evidentiary hearing.
      In his supplemental brief, Alhimidi does not address any issue relevant
to the question of the propriety of the denial of his petition for resentencing.
His discussion is focused entirely on his claim of innocence and alleged errors
in the conduct of the original trial. This appeal does not relate to the trial on
guilt which was resolved in our prior appeal. Alhimidi has not identified any
potentially meritorious issues relevant to this appeal.
      We have reviewed the record consistent with Wende and Anders. We
have not discovered any meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The order denying Alhimidi’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                        HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

                                        3