Court Opinion

ID: 9892965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 17:03:51.885056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:51.309512
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/25/23 P. v. Ceron 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                        G062281

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 01CF0449)

 CARLOS ERNESTO CERON,                                                 OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Patrick H. Donahue, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Leslie Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               Carlos Ernesto Ceron appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing under
                                     1
Penal Code section 1170.95. However, his appellate attorney was unable to find any
arguable issues in the record, and we have not detected any either. Therefore, we affirm
the trial court’s denial order.
                                               BACKGROUND
               In 2003, appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and first
degree murder with a lying-in-wait special circumstance. (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187,
subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(15).) The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without
parole, and we affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Ceron (Apr. 22, 2005,
G033152) [nonpub. opn.].)
                 In 2019, appellant petitioned for resentencing under section 1170.95. The
trial court denied the petition on the basis appellant failed to make a prima facie showing
for relief. On appeal, we affirmed the denial order because appellant was not convicted
of murder under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences
doctrine. (People v. Ceron (Oct. 1, 2020, G058998) [nonpub. opn.].)
              Section 1170.95 was subsequently expanded to permit resentencing for a
defendant who was convicted of murder under any theory in which malice was imputed
to him based solely on his participation in a crime. (Sen. Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg.
Sess.) eff. Jan. 1, 2022. (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2).) In the wake of that amendment,
appellant filed a new petition for resentencing. However, that petition was also
summarily denied.
                In this appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues
but requesting that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. We informed appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief,

         1
                   In 2022, that section was renumbered without substantive change as Penal Code section 1172.6.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will cite to Penal Code section 1170.95 for ease of reference. All further statutory
references are to the Penal Code.

                                                          2
however, he declined to do so. Exercising our discretion and in the interest of justice, we
have examined the entire record for any arguable issues. (See id. at p. 230.) But our
examination has only confirmed counsel’s conclusion there is no arguable issue.
Appellant’s petition was properly denied.
                                       DISCUSSION
             As noted above, a defendant may now petition for resentencing if he was
convicted of murder under the felony murder rule, the natural and probable consequences
doctrine, or any other theory under which malice was imputed to him based solely on his
participation in a crime. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).) However, appellant’s jury was not
instructed on any theory of imputed malice, and by finding appellant guilty of conspiracy
to commit murder and lying-in-wait murder, it necessarily determined he acted with
express malice. (CALJIC Nos. 8.69, 8.80.1, 8.81.15.1; People v. Medrano (2021) 68
Cal.App.5th 177, 184-186; People v. Robbins (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 660, 670.)
Therefore, he is outside the scope of section 1170.95, and the trial court properly denied
his petition at the prima facie stage of the proceedings. (People v. Strong (2022) 13
Cal.5th 698, 708; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971.) There is no arguable
basis for disturbing that decision.
                                      DISPOSITION
             The trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.

                                                  BEDSWORTH, J.
WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.

                                             3