Court Opinion

ID: 9410527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 17:04:09.475237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:57.812606
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/20/23 P. v. Uribe 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E080159

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF123822)

 DAVID RUBEN URIBE,                                                      ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.                                       [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

         The opinion herein, filed on April 14, 2023, is modified as follows:

         On page 1 of the opinion, “John D. Ferguson, Judge,” should be deleted and

replaced with, “John D. Molloy, Judge.”

         The modification does not affect the judgement.

         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                                      RAMIREZ
                                                                                                                       P. J.

                                                             1
Filed 4/14/23 P. v. Uribe CA4/2 (unmodified opinion)
See Dissenting Opinion

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E080159

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF123822)

 DAVID RUBEN URIBE,                                                      OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jon D. Ferguson, Judge.

Affirmed with directions.

         John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Defendant and appellant David Ruben Uribe appeals the Riverside County

Superior Court’s summary denial of his petition for resentencing made pursuant to

section 1172.6 of the Penal Code.1 We will order correction of the record and affirm.

                                     BACKGROUND

       Defendant was convicted of first degree murder in February 2011 and we affirmed

the judgment. (People v. Uribe (Mar. 13, 2013, E053314) [nonpub. opn.] (Uribe I).)

Thereafter, defendant twice petitioned the trial court for section 1172.6 resentencing with

respect to that conviction without success. This appeal is from the court’s denial of his

second petition.

       1. Defendant’s appeal from the dismissal of his first petition

       In his appeal from the dismissal of his first petition for resentencing, defendant

argued the trial court erred because the jury’s special-circumstance findings did not

preclude him from obtaining relief under section 1172.6. He also claimed remand was

required on due process grounds because he had a statutory right to submit a brief after

his counsel was appointed and no brief was filed. We found defendant was not eligible

for resentencing relief as a matter of law because his conviction does not come within the

requirements of section 1172.6. (People v. Uribe (Jan. 25, 2022, E075761) [nonpub.

opn.] (Uribe II).) On February 23, 2022, we denied his petition for rehearing.

Thereafter, the Supreme Court denied his petition for review (Mar. 30, 2022, S273330).

       1  Section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without change in the text,
effective June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For the sake of simplicity, we refer
to the provision by its new numbering. All further statutory references are to the Penal
Code.

                                             2
         2. The denial of defendant’s second petition resulting in this appeal

         In June 2022, just six months after we issued our opinion in Uribe II, defendant

filed another petition pursuant to 1172.6, again seeking resentencing in the same matter

that was the subject of his first petition. Defendant waived his appearance but was

represented by counsel at the hearing, who submitted following the People’s oral motion

to deny the petition with prejudice. The court granted the motion, stating on the record

that the petition “is denied with prejudice.” The minutes of the hearing reflect the denial,

but does not include the fact that the denial was with prejudice.

         On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief in

accordance with the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216

stating that counsel reviewed the record and did not find an arguable issue. Counsel

suggests two potentially arguable issues involving special circumstances set forth in

subdivision (a) of section 190.2, which were addressed in Uribe II.: whether defendant is

precluded from resentencing relief on account of either (i) the jury’s true finding on the

victim witness special circumstance set forth in subdivision (a)(10), or (ii) its true finding

on the subdivision (a)(15) lying-in-wait special circumstance.

         We offered defendant an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief, but none was

filed.

                                        DISCUSSION

         As a general rule, if this court has made a determination in an earlier appeal that a

defendant is not eligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and defendant then

                                               3
later appeals from a denial of a second 1172.6 petition filed in the same case, dismissal of

the appeal is an appropriate remedy. But, if we find correction of the record in the

second appeal is necessary, then we affirm with directions to fix the error.

       Here, defendant’s second resentencing petition sought the same relief in the same

matter as his first petition even though our opinion in Uribe II. had already made clear

that his conviction does not meet the requirements of section 1172.6 as a matter of law.

We will not dismiss his appeal from the trial court’s denial of the second petition,

however, because the court’s order set forth in minutes of the hearing on that petition

differs from the order contained in the reporter’s transcript.

       Where there is a discrepancy between the reporter’s transcript and the minutes that

cannot be harmonized, which record will prevail depends on the circumstances of each

particular case. (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 226.) Here, we deem the

reporter’s transcript to be the accurate record. Accordingly, we will affirm the trial

court’s order denying defendant’s petition with prejudice and order correction of the

record.

                                              4
                                    DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed with directions to correct the October 28, 2022 minute

order to read, “Petition for 1170.95 denied with prejudice,” and “Motion/Petition denied

with prejudice.”

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                              RAMIREZ
                                                                                     P. J.
I concur:

FIELDS
                          J.

                                            5
[The People v. David Ruben Uribe, E080159]

MENETREZ, J., Dissenting.

      I respectfully dissent because I would dismiss the appeal as abandoned under

People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.

                                                            MENETREZ

                                                                                     J.

                                           1