Court Opinion

ID: 9382430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 18:02:18.828823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:39.048959
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/27/23 P. v. Gonzales 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E079799

 v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. FVA09485)

 RICHARD RAUL GONZALES,                                                   OPINION

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Mary E. Fuller,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Richard Raul Gonzales, in pro. per., and Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment

by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                           1
       Defendant and appellant, Richard Raul Gonzales, filed a petition for resentencing

pursuant to Penal Code former section 1170.95,1 which the court denied. After defense

counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant.

       Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d

436 (Wende), Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), and People v.

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo),2 setting forth a statement of the case and

identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court prejudicially erred in

denying defendant’s petition without issuing an OSC and holding an evidentiary hearing.

       This court offered defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief,

which he has done.3 Defendant requests we conduct an independent review of the matter.

Specifically, defendant avers (1) due process violations involving ineffective assistance of

counsel for failing to communicate with him, (2) the purported improper use of this

court’s opinion from defendant’s appeal of the judgment, and (3) error in not holding an

evidentiary hearing on his petition. We affirm.

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
       Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended
and renumbered Penal Code section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58,
§ 10.)

       2In Delgadillo, the California Supreme Court recently held that Wende and
Anders procedures do not apply in appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6
postjudgment petition. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-226.)

       3 “If the defendant . . . files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is
required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written
opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
                                             2
                I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 4

       “On January 16, 1998, defendant and other Prophecy[5] members Ricardo Gomez

and David Pineda retrieved guns from defendant’s house. Gomez took a ‘.22-millimeter

nine-shot’ revolver, Pineda took a ‘.45-millimeter’ [semiautomatic,] and defendant took a

‘.380-[caliber] [semi]automatic.’” (Gonzales, supra, E025273.)

       After a fight at a party, defendant borrowed Gomez’s .22-caliber revolver and ran

down the street. “Witnesses saw a Hispanic male, about 17 years old, matching

defendant’s description and wearing a ‘Prophecy’ baseball cap, shoot the victim,” who

died. (Gonzales, supra, E025273.)

       On May 14, 1999, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder (Pen. Code,

§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that he personally used a firearm in the

commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to

25 years to life on the murder charge and 25 years to life on the personal use of a firearm

enhancement, to run consecutively. (Gonzales, supra, E025273.)

       Defendant appealed. This court affirmed the judgment. (Gonzales, supra,

E025273.)

       4 We take judicial notice of our prior nonpublished opinion from defendant’s
appeal from the original judgment (People v. Gonzales (Aug. 7, 2000, E025273)
[nonpub. opn.] (Gonzales)), which the People attached to and relied upon in their
opposition to defendant’s petition below. We take our factual recitation from Gonzales.

       5  Prophecy was a “party crew,” to which defendant belonged; its members “attend
parties advertised on fliers, distributed through a high school. Although party crews
claim not to be gangs, they may not get along with rival party crews. These rivalries
sometimes result in violence.” (Gonzales, supra, E025273.)
                                           3
       On May 31, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former

section 1170.95. The superior court appointed counsel for defendant.

       On July 26, 2022, the People filed an opposition to defendant’s petition. The

People asserted defendant had failed to make a prima facie case because the jury had not

been instructed with felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences

doctrine, or any other theory under which malice could be imputed to defendant based

upon his participation in a crime. Moreover, the People maintained that as the actual

killer, defendant was not entitled to relief as a matter of law. On August 25, 2022,

defense counsel filed a brief in support of a prima facie finding.

       At the hearing on the petition on September 15, 2022, the court stated it had read

and considered defendant’s petition, the People’s opposition, and defendant’s reply. The

court indicated it had reviewed the verdict and jury forms. “[T]he jury was instructed

only on the issue of express malice murder; therefore, they did not consider the theory of

the natural and probable consequences doctrine or any other theory under which malice is

imputed to a person based solely on the person’s participation in the crime. And ,

therefore, the defendant has not met his burden of a prima facie showing. And I am

going to deny his petition.”

                                     II. DISCUSSION

       Defendant requests we conduct an independent review of the matter. Specifically,

defendant avers (1) due process violations involving ineffective assistance of counsel for

failing to communicate with him, (2) the purported improper use of this court’s opinion

                                            4
from defendant’s appeal of the judgment, and (3) error in not holding an evidentiary

hearing on his petition. We affirm.

       “Senate Bill 1437 [(2017-2018 Reg. Sess.)] significantly limited the scope of the

felony-murder rule to effectuate the Legislature’s declared intent ‘to ensure that 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.’” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708.)

       “When the trial court receives a petition containing the necessary d eclaration and

other required information, the court must evaluate the petition ‘to determine whether the

petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief.’ [Citations.] If the petition and record

in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court

may dismiss the petition.” (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708.)

       Here, a review of the jury instructions and verdicts conclusively demonstrates that

the jury convicted defendant of express malice murder, i.e., as the actual, intentional

killer of the victim.6 Because defendant was per se ineligible for relief, defendant did

not, and could not, make the prima facie showing that is a prerequisite to the issuance of

an order to show cause and the holding of an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, for the

same reason, any error by counsel could not be prejudicial for the purpose of finding that

counsel rendered prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, courts are

       6  Defendant made statements admitting that he had shot the victim. At trial, he
requested instructions on self-defense, which the court denied. This court affirmed the
court’s refusal to give self-defense instructions. (Gonzales, supra, E025273.)
                                             5
not barred from relying on the procedural background of a court’s prior opinion in

determining defendant’s eligibility for relief; rather, they are barred only from relying on

an opinion’s factual recitation. (People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 292;

accord People v. Flores (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 974, 988.) Finally, the court below

indicated it was relying on the jury instructions and verdicts in denying the petition, not

this court’s opinion. Thus, the court properly denied defendant’s petition for failure to

make a prima facie showing for relief.

                                    III. DISPOSITION

       The court’s order dismissing the petition is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                McKINSTER
                                                                                 Acting P. J.
We concur:

MILLER
                           J.

RAPHAEL
                           J.

                                            6