Court Opinion

ID: 9926026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 18:03:11.339736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:58.615536
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/23/24 P. v. Mora 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D082338

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD251068)

 JOE MORA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.
         Joe Mora, in pro. per.; and Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         In 2015, a jury convicted Joe Mora of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1
§ 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true an allegation Mora personally
discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury and that the killing
was committed during the attempt to commit a burglary or robbery. The

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
court sentenced Mora to life in prison without the possibility of parole for
murder with a consecutive term of 25 years-to-life for the firearm
enhancement.
      Mora appealed and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Mora
(Dec. 14, 2016, D069066) [nonpub. opn.].)
      In 2022, Mora filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.6.
      The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of
conviction, and held a hearing. The court denied Mora’s petition by written
order. The court found Mora failed to state a prima facie case for relief based
on its review of the record of conviction. The court found Mora was the actual
perpetrator of the killing. Mora was the only person charged and was tried
as the actual shooter. Accordingly, the court found Mora was ineligible for
relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The petition was denied
without issuing an order to show cause or conducting an evidentiary hearing.
      Mora 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 to independently review the record for
error consistent with the practice under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende). We notified Mora of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has
responded by filing a one page letter requesting the court to consider evidence
of alibi which was not presented in the trial. Mora’s brief does not discuss
any issues relating to the denial of his petition for resentencing.
      The facts of the offense were discussed in our prior opinion. We will not
repeat that discussion here.

                                        2
                                DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Delgadillo and asks the court to independently review the record for error.
To assist the court in making such review, and 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 referring to the jury verdict on the alleged special
circumstances of murder during the commission or attempted commission of
a robbery and a burglary.
      We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for
error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any
potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has
represented Mora on this appeal.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying Mora’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                      HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

KELETY, J.

                                       3