Court Opinion

ID: 9411963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 17:04:36.014348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:21.522304
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/28/23 P. v. Olvera CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080269

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. CR28041)

 DAVID ARENAS OLVERA, JR.,                                               OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Affirmed.

         David A. Olvera, Jr., in pro. per.; Stephanie M. Adraktas, under appointment by

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
          Defendant and appellant David Arenas Olvera, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s

order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 former section

1170.95 (now renumbered to section 1172.6). For the reasons set forth post, we affirm.

                                STATEMENT OF THE CASE

          On November 10, 1987, an information charged defendant with attempted murder

under sections 664 and 187 (count 1), and assault with a firearm under section 245,

subdivision (a)(2) (counts 2 and 3). As to count 1, the information also alleged that

defendant, with the intent to inflict injury, inflicted great bodily injury under section

12022.7. As to all counts, the information further alleged that defendant personally used

a firearm causing great bodily injury under sections 12022.5 and 1192.7, subdivision

(c)(8).

          On June 14, 1989, defendant pled guilty to attempted murder (count 1) and assault

with a firearm (count 2).2 As to both counts, defendant admitted that he used a firearm

causing great bodily injury under section 12022.5. Moreover, defendant admitted that he

was armed with a firearm as to the accessory after the fact count.

          Thereafter, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 15 years and eight

months in prison, as follows: the upper term of nine years for attempted murder (count

1), one-year consecutive term for assault with a firearm (count 2), and eight months

consecutive for accessory after the fact. The court also ordered a five-year consecutive

          1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

          2 On November 9, 1989, defendant pled guilty to accessory after the fact under
section 32 in another case, case No. CR28662 (consolidated case, different victim).

                                                2
term under section 12022.5 for the firearm enhancement as to count 1. The court then

stayed the remaining enhancement sentences.

       On October 19, 2021, defendant filed a petition to vacate his attempted murder

conviction in propria persona. On January 10, 2022, the trial court issued an order to

show cause requiring the People to show cause why defendant was not entitled to relief.

       On April 22, 2022, the People filed opposition arguing that the preliminary

hearing transcripts for this case and the consolidated case established beyond a

reasonable doubt that defendant had committed attempted murder with express malice.

At the hearing on the petition on May 18, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s

petition.

       On June 3, 2022, defendant filed a second pro. per. petition for resentencing under

section 1170.95. On July 1, 2022, defendant filed a third pro. per. petition for

resentencing under the same statute. On September 19, 2022, and October 24, 2022,

defendant filed pro. per. requests for rulings on his petitions. On November 18, 2022, the

trial court dismissed the petitions on grounds that the petition had been denied on May

18, 2022, when the court ruled on the first petition.

       On November 30, 2022, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                              3
                               STATEMENT OF FACTS

       A.     DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEAS3

       According to the abstract of judgment, defendant pled guilty to (1) attempted

murder under sections 664 and 187 (count 1), and assault with a firearm under section

245, subdivision (a)(2) (count 3), on June 14, 1989; and (2) being an accessory to a

felony under section 32, on November 9, 1989. As to counts 1 and 3, defendant also

admitted special allegations that he used a firearm under section 12022.5, subdivision (a).

       B.     DEFENDANT’S PETITIONS

       On October 19, 2021, June 3, 2022, and July 1, 2022, defendant filed petitions for

resentencing under section 1172.6. In the petitions, defendant alleged that the

information filed against defendant proceeded under a natural or probable consequences

doctrine or other theory under which malice was imputed. Because of the changes made

to sections 188 and 189, he could not now be convicted of attempted murder.

       The People filed their opposition to the first petition on April 22, 2022. In the

opposition, the People provided that defendant had personally fired a gun at the victim

about five times, and struck the victim on his chest and arm. Based on the transcripts of

the preliminary hearings and on the evidence of other bad acts tending to support a

       3 The reporter’s transcripts of defendant’s guilty plea hearings are not included in
the record. Court reporter Helen Lee (for Susan Schoonover) attested that there are no
notes for the June 14, 1989, attempted murder plea hearing because they “are more than
ten (10) years old and are no longer available for preparation per Government Code
Section 69955(e).” Helen Lee (for Ethel Brooks) attested the same as to the hearing on
November 9, 1989, on the accessory plea. There is also no record of defendant’s written
plea agreement.

                                             4
finding of express malice, the prosecutor argued that the People had met their burden of

proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

       With the opposition, the People attached the transcripts from the preliminary

hearings in this and the consolidated case, and records from other court cases.

               1.    ATTEMPTED MURDER PRELIMINARY HEARING TRANSCRIPT

       At the preliminary hearing on the attempted murder case, Estanislao Solorio

testified. He stated that defendant had been living in Solorio’s house. At that time,

defendant was dating his younger daughter, Patricia. The day before the charged

incident, Lucy, Solorio’s older daughter, told defendant that he could no longer stay at

their house.

       On the morning of August 14, 1987, the day of the attempted murder, Solorio was

in bed at his home in Riverside when he heard Lucy “hollering, like a cry” from the front

of the house. Armed with a gun, Solorio ran down a hall; he saw Lucy and defendant

standing outside. Solorio saw that defendant was pointing a gun at Lucy’s head. When

Solorio approached, defendant pointed his gun at Solorio and said, “ ‘Don’t you get

involved or I’ll kill you.’ ” Solorio asked defendant to put the gun away.

       As Solorio retreated into the house, defendant followed him and demanded that

Solorio put his hands in the air. After Solorio closed the door behind him, defendant

fired five shots through the door, striking Solorio on his chest and arm.

               2.    CONSOLIDATED CASE PRELIMINARY HEARING

       The consolidated case related to events that occurred prior to the attempted murder

incident.

                                             5
       At the preliminary hearing, Officer Sutton testified that on May 10, 1987, he was

working in the Casa Blanca area of Riverside when he was dispatched to Evans Street.

Just prior to receiving the call, Sutton heard eight gunshots fired. When he got to Evans

Street, he saw a person, later identified as Robert Pena, in the driver’s side of a vehicle

with four gunshot wounds to his head; Pena “was lifeless.”

       Riverside Police Officer McBride testified that a gun, consistent with the murder

weapon that killed Pena, was registered to defendant. Patricia Solorio directed the

officers to a lake where defendant had thrown the gun; the gun was recovered.

       Patricia testified that defendant had confessed to her that he killed Pena. She

accompanied defendant when he disposed of his gun. She was at her house when

defendant shot her father on August 14, 1987.

       The day before defendant shot Solorio in the underlying case at issue, defendant

kicked and punched Patricia. Patricia and Solorio reported the incident to the police.

       C.     THE TRIAL COURT’S ORDERS

       At a hearing on May 18, 2022, the trial denied defendant’s motion to vacate his

attempted murder conviction under section 1172.6.

       At the hearing on defendant’s other two petitions on November 18, 2022, the

prosecutor argued that the petitions were the same as the first one defendant filed, which

the court had denied. Defense counsel stated: “I confirm with what [the prosecutor] said.

I’ll submit with a formal objection.” Therefore, the trial court dismissed the petitions

filed on June 3, 2022, and July 11, 2022. It stated: “At this point in time, the most

                                              6
current petition will be denied, as the issue was previously ruled—it was previously ruled

that [defendant] was ineligible for relief; and there, this petition is also denied.”

                                       DISCUSSION

       Counsel has filed a brief under the authorities of People v. Wende (1979) 25

Cal.3rd 436, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 739, and People v. Delgadillo (2022)

14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). In the brief, pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386

U.S. 738, appellate counsel has identified the following issue to assist the court in its

search of the record for error:

       “Did the trial court have jurisdiction to reconsider its prior denial of the section

1172.6 petitions (made on May 18, 2022) where there has been no significant change in

the law and where trial counsel had been appointed after the original petition was filed?”

       On May 4, 2023, we sent notice to defendant regarding the filing of a Delgadillo

brief, as follows: “Counsel for appellant has filed a brief stating no arguable issues can

be found. Because this is an appeal from the denial of a post-conviction proceeding, this

court is not required to conduct an independent review of the record but may do so in its

discretion. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Ca1.5th 216 . . .; People v. Serrano (2012)

211 Ca1.App.4th 496.) The appellant is personally granted 30 days to file any

supplemental brief deemed necessary. If appellant files a supplemental brief, this court

will evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief in its opinion. (Delgadillo,

. . . at p. 165.) Failure to timely file a supplemental brief may result in the dismissal of

the appeal as abandoned.”

                                               7
       On June 5, 2023, defendant filed a 10-page handwritten supplemental brief. In the

brief, defendant appears to challenge whether an accessory to murder under section 32 in

his consolidated case, not the underlying case to the appeal, affects his attempted murder

conviction: Whether “the definition of accessories . . . is direct aiding & abetting or

aiding and abetting natural, and probable consequences doctrine or major participant of

the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life or acted with

malice aforethought that imputed express malice based solely on participation in a crime

[of attempted murder].” Moreover, defendant contends that he “only used his firearm in

self defense to scare” the victim. And that “[t]his incident was a result of the police’s

attempt to entrap appellant by tainting, planting unreliable testimony by the hearsay

witnesses to the murders” in the consolidated case, case No. CR28662. Defendant’s

arguments regarding the consolidated case, however, do not affect the trial court’s denial

of his section 1172.6 petition pertaining to the attempted murder of Solorio. The

consolidated case involved the murder of Pena, wherein defendant admitted he was

armed with a firearm as an accessory to murder.

       Nonetheless, we will address whether the court erred in denying defendant’s

petition. Section 1172.6 limits who may seek resentencing to the following: “A person

convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences

doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that

person’s participation in a crime, attempted murder under the natural and probable

consequences doctrine, or manslaughter may file a petition with the court.” (§ 1172.6,

subd. (a), italics and boldface added.) Section 1172.6, therefore, only applies to

                                              8
defendants convicted of attempted murder if they were convicted under the natural and

probable consequences doctrine.

       In this case, at the hearing on the first petition, the trial court noted that it had

“reviewed the People’s brief in which they attached the exhibits and cite to the reporter’s

transcripts, specifically with respect to the preliminary hearing testimony.” The court

also noted that defendant did not file a response to the opposition brief. Defense counsel

responded that she would not be filing a response brief. The court then stated: “There

are several things that are abundantly clear by the wealth of the evidence that was

presented, and that is, the defendant was the actual shooter in the case and that he did in

fact shoot and cause great bodily injury to the victim in this case.” (Italics added.) After

further discussion with the People, the court stated: “The Court does find the People

have carried their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is

guilty of attempted murder of the victim, which was his girlfriend’s father who

intervened, and that he in fact shot several times at the gentleman and struck him with

one of the bullets.”

       Therefore, the uncontroverted evidence showed that defendant was the sole actual

shooter in the attempted murder of Solorio, thus establishing his guilt as the actual

perpetrator, whose criminal liability was based on his own acts and mental state, not any

theory of vicarious liability.

       Based on the foregoing, and our independent review of the record, we find that the

trial court correctly determined defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.

(Delgadillo, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 233.)

                                                9
                                    DISPOSITION

      The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is

affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                      MILLER
                                                                            Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
                               J.

MENETREZ
                               J.

                                          10