Court Opinion

ID: 9392336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 17:04:05.103088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:45.470729
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/4/23 P. v. Abiel CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D080726

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD244879)

 ABAN ABIEL,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed.
         Aban Abiel, in pro. per.; and Steven A. Torres, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2013, a jury convicted Aban Abiel of second degree murder (Pen.
Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found he used a knife in the commission of the
offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Abiel was sentenced to an indeterminate term
of 16 years to life in prison.
         Abiel appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished
opinion. (People v. Abiel (Dec. 17, 2014, D064565).)
      In 2018, Abiel filed his first petition for resentencing under
section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The court found Abiel had
not stated a prima facie case for relief under the statute and, thus, denied the
petition.
      In 2022, Abiel filed his second petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. The trial court again denied the petition finding on both
petitions that Abiel was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief
under the statute. The court stated:
            “Petitioner’s first petition was denied on July 20, 2020, on
            the grounds that the record demonstrated Petitioner was
            the actual killer, and, thus, ineligible for relief. While there
            have been subsequent changes to Section [1172.6] through
            legislative amendments and varying statutory
            interpretations within the relevant case law, there has
            been no change in the applicable law or facts to Petitioner’s
            case that would justify the filing of a successive petition,
            nor has Petitioner asserted such a justification.”

      Abiel filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
conduct an independent review of the record for error consistent with the
procedure called for in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We
have granted the request and independently reviewed the record for error
consistent with Wende. We notified Abiel of his right to file his own brief on
appeal. Abiel has responded by filing a supplemental brief, which we will
discuss later in this opinion.
      We will omit a statement of facts in this opinion. The facts of the
underlying offense are summarized in our previous opinion. (People v. Abiel,
supra, D064565.) There is no reason to repeat them here.

                                           2
                                 DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Delgadillo, but asks us to apply the Wende procedure and review the record
for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible
issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
      1.    Whether the trial court was correct in stating the issues in this
appeal had been fully litigated in the previous petition.
      2.    Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in ruling on the second
petition without first receiving briefing as mandated by statute.
      In his supplemental brief, Abiel argues his form declaration filed with
his petition was sufficient to state a prima facie case for relief. Abiel does not
deny he is the person who stabbed the victim causing death. He seeks to
make the case that the stabbing was not intentional and that someone else
actually brought the knife to the scene. He does not contend he was an aider
and abettor whose liability arises from the felony murder rule or from the
doctrine of natural and probable consequences. Rather, Abiel seeks to
mitigate his involvement in the offense, given that he is the actual killer.
      Abiel’s brief does not raise any arguable issues on appeal from the
denial of his petition for resentencing. This is not an additional review of the
sufficiency of the evidence.
      We have reviewed the entire record consistent with Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel; has represented Abiel on this appeal.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The order denying Abiel’s second petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                        3
                   HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

               4