Court Opinion

ID: 9901969
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 19:02:21.323563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.381323
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/22/23 P. v. Palacios CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 2d Crim. No. B329788
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. BA165407)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County)

 v.

 JORGE PALACIOS,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Jorge Palacios appeals the order of the trial court denying
his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section
1172.61 (former section 1170.95).2 We appointed counsel to
represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the
record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and
requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People v.

         1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

         2 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed his
own supplemental brief, in propria persona. We affirm.
                       Procedural Background
        In 1998, a jury convicted appellant of second degree
murder (§ 187, subd. (a), count 1), attempted murder (§§ 664/187,
subd. (a), count 2), and mayhem (§ 203, count 3). The jury also
found true as to each count the allegation that appellant
personally and intentionally discharged a firearm resulting in
great bodily injury. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court
sentenced appellant to 70 years to life.
       We affirmed the conviction in a nonpublished opinion,
(People v. Palacios (Oct. 21, 1999, B129567).)
       In 2022, appellant filed a form petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel and
ordered briefing. Appellant submitted two letters to the trial
court requesting the trial court consider that he was “totally
disabled.”
       The trial court denied the petition finding there was no
prima facie showing because appellant was the actual killer
based on the record of conviction.
                              Discussion
       Because the instant appeal is from an order denying
postconviction relief rather than a first appeal as of right from a
criminal conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent
review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-
222, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119
[independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to
first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th

                                 2
496, 503.) However, he is entitled to appellate consideration of
any contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo,
at p. 232; Serrano, at p. 503.)
       In his supplemental brief, appellant asserts that he is
“medically incapacitated with a condition that did not exist at the
time of the original sentencing.” He contends his “diminished
physical condition . . . reduce[s] the risk for future violence” and
the “evidence” reflects that “continued incarceration is no longer
in the interest of justice.” Appellant also asks this court to take
into consideration that he was a “victim of child exploitation and
intimidation” and cites newly enacted legislation, including
Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731, §
1.3), Assembly Bill No. 518 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021,
ch. 441, § 1), and Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats.
2021, ch. 721, § 1).
       Appellant’s contentions are meritless.
       First, the recall or resentencing of an incarcerated person
with a serious medical disability is triggered by a
recommendation from the statewide chief medical executive of
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and is
governed by the provisions set forth in section 1172.2. Those
provisions are not applicable here.
       Second, appellant is not entitled to retroactive application
of subsequently enacted ameliorative legislation because the
judgment in his case has been final for more than 20 years. (See
In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744-745.)

                                 3
                           Disposition
     The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.6 is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                               YEGAN, J.
We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                               4
                  James R. Dabney, Judge
            Superior Court County of Los Angeles
              ______________________________

     Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.