Court Opinion

ID: 9388042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 18:02:45.180358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:17.072751
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/19/23 P. v. Santos CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        G061708

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 02CF2639)

 EDUARDO FLORES SANTOS,                                                OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance
Jensen, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Robert E. Boyce, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                             *               *               *
              The trial court denied defendant Eduardo Flores Santos’ Penal Code section
                                               1
1170.95 petition (now Pen. Code, § 1172.6). The court denied the petition because the
jury was not instructed on the felony-murder rule and/or the natural and probable
consequences theory: “Based on the jury instructions, petitioner was convicted as the
actual killer and would still be guilty of murder under current law.” Santos filed a notice
of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues.
(See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Santos did not file a supplemental
brief on his own behalf.
              In the interests of justice, this court has reviewed the record and found no
arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 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”].) Thus, we affirm the order of the trial court.

                                               I
                                PROCEDURAL HISTORY
              In 2003, a jury convicted Santos of murder and found true an allegation he
personally used a knife in the commission of the crime. The court sentenced Santos to a
prison term of 15 years to life. This court affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v.
Santos (Aug. 18, 2020, G057886) [nonpub. opn.].)
              In 2022, Santos filed a postjudgment petition seeking to vacate his murder
conviction and to be resentenced. (§ 1172.6.) The prosecution filed a response, which
included a copy of the information, the jury instructions used in the 2003 trial, a copy of
the verdict forms, and the underlying unpublished opinion.
              In August 2022, the trial court conducted a prima facie hearing and denied

1
 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The Legislature
renumbered former section 1170.95 without substantive change, effective June 30, 2022.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                               2
Santos’ petition in a written ruling. The court found: “Petitioner was prosecuted alone.
The jury instructions do not disclose any other potential co-defendant or perpetrator who
could have been responsible for the instant offense. The jury was not instructed
regarding felony murder, aiding and abetting, or the natural and probable consequences
doctrine.” The court concluded: “Based on the jury instructions, petitioner was
convicted as the actual killer and would still be guilty of murder under current law. He
thus fails to establish a prima facie case for resentencing.” Santos’ trial counsel filed a
notice of appeal on defendant’s behalf.

                                              II
                                       DISCUSSION
              When appointed counsel has identified no arguable issues on appeal, the
appellate court independently reviews the record for any arguable issues. (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two
elements. First, the issue must be one which . . . is meritorious. That is not to say that
the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable
potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved
favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the
judgment.” (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
              Here, after independently reviewing the record, we have similarly found no
arguable issues. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 442.) The absence of an instruction
on the natural and probable consequences doctrine and/or the felony-murder rule
confirms Santos is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. Thus, the
trial court properly denied the section 1172.6 petition. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11
Cal.5th 952, 961-970.)

                                              3
                                       III
                                   DISPOSITION
          The order is affirmed.

                                             MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

GOETHALS, J.

                                        4