Court Opinion

ID: 9642638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:04:56.6826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:49:13.112170
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/22/23 P. v. Sanchez CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                  B326120

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. BA372623)
         v.

ISRAEL JAMMIR SANCHEZ,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      THE COURT:
      Defendant and appellant Israel Jammir Sanchez appeals
from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under
Penal Code section 1172.61 (former § 1170.95),2 which allows

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.

2     Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
For simplicity, we refer to the section by its new numbering.
defendants convicted of attempted murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine to seek resentencing relief.
       Defendant’s appointed counsel found no arguable issues
and filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). Under the standard articulated in Delgadillo, we
decline counsel’s invitation to undertake an independent review
of the record. Instead, we evaluate the arguments that defendant
raises in his letter brief. (Delgadillo, supra, at pp. 231–232.)
Finding none of his arguments meritorious, we affirm.
         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.     The Conviction and Sentence
       A jury convicted defendant of attempted murder, finding
true the intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily
injury and gang allegations. (§§ 664/187, subd. (a), 12022.53,
subd. (d), 186.22, subd. (b).) He was sentenced to a term of seven
years plus 25 years to life, consisting of the middle term of seven
years for attempted murder and an additional 25 years to life for
the use of a firearm resulting in great bodily injury. The gang
enhancement was stayed. On direct appeal, we held that the
trial court erred by failing to either strike or impose the gang
enhancement and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of
allowing the trial court to impose or strike the additional term set
forth in section 186.22, subdivision (b). In all other respects, we
affirmed the judgment. (People v. Sanchez (Oct. 15, 2013,
B239022) [nonpub. opn.], at pp. 2–3.)
II.    Petition for Resentencing
       On September 30, 2018, the Governor signed Senate Bill
No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Sen. Bill 1437) in order to
“amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that

                                 2
murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual
killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major
participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless
indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)
       Effective January 1, 2019, Sen. Bill 1437 added former
section 1170.95, subdivision (a), creating a procedure whereby a
person convicted of, as relevant here, “murder under . . . [any]
theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on
that person’s participation in a crime, [or] attempted murder
under the natural and probable consequences doctrine,” but who
could not now be convicted, can petition to have the murder
conviction vacated and to be resentenced. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015,
§ 4.) Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022
Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.6 to include convictions of
“attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.)
       In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court denied his petition,
and defendant appealed. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a
brief pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 15 Cal.5th at page 231
raising no issues.

       On June 6, 2023, we notified defendant of his counsel’s
brief and gave him leave to file his own brief or letter stating
grounds for appellate relief. On June 30, 2023, defendant filed a
letter brief.

                                  3
                          DISCUSSION
       In his supplemental brief, defendant argues that ever since
his arrest he has been under duress by the prosecution team,
which allegedly threatened and pressured him, a juvenile.
According to defendant, this alleged misconduct violated his
constitutional rights.
       Defendant’s argument fails. There is no evidence in the
appellate record that defendant’s constitutional rights were
violated. Even assuming without deciding that defendant’s
constitutional rights were violated, that would not entitle
defendant to be resentenced under section 1172.6. As the statute
plainly provides, only defendants convicted of attempted murder
under the natural and probable consequences doctrine are
entitled to resentencing relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(1); People v.
Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548.) Because defendant has
not demonstrated or argued that he was convicted of attempted
murder under this theory, he is ineligible for relief. (Ibid.)
                          DISPOSITION
       The order is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J.          ASHMANN-GERST, J.            CHAVEZ, J.

                                 4