Court Opinion

ID: 9840464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 18:03:40.353682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:32.742995
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/18/23 P. v. Pao CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C093267

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 05F03254)

           v.

 GE LOR PAO,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         In 2005, defendant Ge Lor Pao and his codefendant Chongt Yang were members
of a gang; the victim was a member of a rival gang. On February 20th of that year,
defendant and his codefendant were passengers in a gold Toyota. The victim was driving

                                                             1
a red Honda. When both cars stopped at an intersection, defendant and his codefendant
exited the Toyota and walked toward the Honda. Both defendant and his codefendant
were armed with a gun and both of them shot at the victim multiple times. The victim
was hit six times and was killed. (People v. Yang (Sept. 28, 2009, C056356, C056754)
[nonpub. opn.] (Yang).)
       In 2007, a jury found defendant and his codefendant guilty of first degree
murder and found that they committed the crime for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
(Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1).)1 As to defendant, the jury found true
that he personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)(1).) This court affirmed the
judgment in 2009. (Yang, supra, C056356, C056754.)
       In June 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former
section 1170.95, now 1172.6.2 The trial court denied defendant’s petition in
December 2020, reasoning that defendant was ineligible for relief because his jury was
never instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Instead, the jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 401 on direct aiding and abetting
and with CALCRIM Nos. 520 and 521 on malice aforethought murder and first degree
willful, deliberate, premeditated murder.
       Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing.
In April 2021, counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and asked this court to review the record and determine whether

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95
to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes
to the statute. Defendant filed his petition under former section 1170.95, but we will
cite to current section 1172.6 in the remainder of our opinion.

                                             2
there are any arguable issues on appeal. This court dismissed the appeal as abandoned
in May 2021.
         The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back
to us with directions to vacate this court’s original decision and reconsider the appeal in
light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).
         In April 2023, this court notified defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental
brief raising any argument he wanted us to consider. Defendant filed a supplemental
brief.
                                        DISCUSSION
                                              A
         Senate Bill No. 1437, which became effective on January 1, 2019, amended
section 188 (defining malice) and section 189 (defining the degrees of murder).
(Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2 & 3.) Amended section 189 states: “A participant in the
perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a
death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: [¶] (1) The
person was the actual killer. [¶] (2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the
intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or
assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. [¶] [or] (3) The
person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless
indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.” (§ 189,
subd. (e).)
         Senate Bill No. 1437 also added section 1172.6, which allows those convicted of
murder under the felony-murder theory to petition the trial court to vacate the conviction
and resentence the defendant. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) “If the petitioner makes a prima
facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show
cause.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).)

                                               3
       The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6 subdivision (c) is limited. (People v.
Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971.) The court “ ‘ “takes petitioner’s factual allegations as
true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be
entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (Ibid.) Although the
court may rely on the record of conviction (including a prior appellate court opinion) in
determining whether defendant has made a prima facie showing, the court “should not
engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ”
(Id. at p. 972.)
                                              B
       In Delgadillo, the California Supreme Court concluded that Wende review is not
required for a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under
section 1172.6. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) Instead, where a
defendant has filed a supplemental brief in such a case, the Court of Appeal is only
required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief. (Id. at p. 232.)
       In his supplemental brief, defendant argues there is insufficient evidence that he
was the actual killer because he never admitted guilt, the eyewitness was a liar, and there
was no physical evidence tying him to the killing. He also argues the true finding on the
firearm enhancement allegation does not disqualify him from relief, and the trial court
improperly relied on this court’s prior opinion.
       Although defendant suggests the evidence of his guilt came from a lying witness,
we will not second-guess the jury’s credibility determinations. There is no indication the
jury found defendant guilty based on a now-improper theory.
       There is also no indication the trial court relied on improper information in
denying relief. Although it said it had reviewed the record of conviction, it did not
specifically mention the firearm enhancement or this court’s prior opinion. The record
does not establish that the trial court erred in concluding defendant was not convicted of
felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

                                              4
                                     DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

                                                   /S/
                                                MAURO, J.

We concur:

    /S/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /S/
RENNER, J.

                                            5