Court Opinion

ID: 9451074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:06:06.597249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:18.536020
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/4/23 P. v. Mejia CA2/5

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                       B324914

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                                   Super. Ct. No. BA389543)
           v.

 ALDO MEJIA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Affirmed.

      Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.

          No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               ___________________________
      Nearly a decade after he pled no contest to mayhem and
assault with a firearm, Aldo Mejia filed a petition for
resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now
section 1172.6).1 Mejia appeals from the trial court’s summary
denial of his petition. We affirm.
                    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      On November 5, 2013, Aldo Mejia pled no contest to one
count each of mayhem and assault with a firearm. (Pen. Code,
§§ 203, 245, subd. (a)(2).) He further admitted firearm and gang
enhancement allegations as to the mayhem count. (§§ 12022.5,
subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court sentenced him to
23 years in state prison.
      On March 3, 2022, Mejia filed a petition for resentencing,
asserting he had been charged under an accusatory pleading that
allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony
murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine; that he was convicted at trial of murder, attempted
murder or manslaughter or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial
at which he could have convicted of murder or attempted murder;
and, that he could not presently be convicted of murder or
attempted murder because of changes made to sections 188 and
189. He also requested the appointment of counsel.
      The trial court summarily denied the petition on the
ground Mejia was never charged with an offense covered by
section 1172.6 and was not convicted of one. Rather, Mejia was
charged with one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling
(§ 246), one count of mayhem (§ 203), five counts of assault with a
firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), and one count of conspiracy to
commit murder (§ 182).

1     All further section references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
       Mejia timely appealed from the trial court’s order. We
appointed counsel.
                           DISCUSSION
       Appellate counsel found no arguable issues to raise on
appeal and requested this court follow the procedure set out in
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 222. On April 3, 2023,
we advised Mejia of his counsel’s no-issue brief and advised him
he could submit a supplemental brief identifying any arguments
he would like us to consider.
       On May 4, 2023, Mejia filed a letter brief explaining he
filed the petition for rehearing because he mistakenly believed he
had been charged with attempted murder. After reviewing the
record, he understands that was not the case. He nevertheless
hopes to “reopen” the matter so this court may dismiss or strike
his enhancements pursuant to Senate Bill No. 81 or Assembly
Bill No. 1310.2
       Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022
Reg. Sess.) amended section 1385 to require the superior court to
dismiss sentencing enhancements “if it is in the furtherance of
justice to do so” and would not endanger public safety. (See
§ 1385, subd. (c).) The changes effected by Senate Bill No. 81
“apply to all sentencings occurring after January 1, 2022.”
(§ 1385, subd. (c)(7).) Senate Bill No. 81 cannot aid Mejia because
he was sentenced in 2013, well before January 1, 2022.

2     Assembly Bill No. 1310 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) proposes
resentencing of those persons in custody who suffered an
additional and consecutive term of imprisonment from a firearm
enhancement. This bill has not passed the Legislature and thus
AB 1310 has no application to Mejia’s case.

                                3
       We have also conducted an independent review of the
record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230 [“if the appellate
court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to conduct its own
independent review of the record in the interest of justice”].) We
conclude Mejia is not entitled to relief under section 1172.6.
(§ 1172.6, subd. (a); People v. Whitson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 22,
34 [the predecessor statute to section 1172.6 did not provide for
resentencing of conspiracy to commit murder convictions, and,
when Legislature amended the statute to include attempted
murder and manslaughter, it did not include conspiracy to
commit murder].) Accordingly, he is ineligible for relief as a
matter of law. (People v. Daniel (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 666, 677.)
                          DISPOSITION
       The order summarily denying Mejia’s section 1172.6
petition is affirmed.

                                     RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

                  MOOR, J.                       KIM, J.

                                 4