Court Opinion

ID: 9378247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 20:03:04.622039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:19.790113
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/9/23 P. v. Alvarado 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E080158

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FSB1205411)

 FELIPE EPIFANIO ALVARADO,                                               OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. William Jefferson

Powell IV, Judge. Affirmed.

         Felipe Epifanio Alvarado, in pro. per., and Robert L. Hernandez, under

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                              1
       Defendant and appellant, Felipe Epifanio Alvarado, filed a motion for

modification of his sentence (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d)),1 which the court denied.

After defendant 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 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of facts, a

statement of the case, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the

court erred in denying defendant’s motion; and (2) whether the court’s denial of

defendant’s motion is appealable.

       Defendant was offered the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has done. Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of

defendant’s 2002 prior conviction, his trial counsel rendered prejudicial ineffective

assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence supported the jury’s true finding on the gang

enhancement allegation, the court prejudicially failed to instruct the jury with

CALCRIM No. 225, and defendant was deprived of due process by the trial court’s

failure to provide a fair trial due to the aforementioned errors. We affirm.

                 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
       2 We take judicial notice of the opinion in People v. Alvarado (Oct. 21, 2015,
E061217) [nonpub. opn.] (Alvarado), from defendant’s appeal from the judgment, which
defendant cites and quotes at length in his supplemental brief. (Evid. Code, §§ 452,
subd. (d), 459; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b)(1).)

                                              2
       “Defendant . . . , a West Side Verdugo gang member, attacked a handyman in a

convenience store, flashed his gang tattoos, and then robbed the cashier at knifepoint. A

jury convicted defendant of second degree robbery and assault by means likely to

produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 245, subd. (a)(4)), as charged in counts 1

and 2, and found true the allegations that both offenses were gang-related and the robbery

involved personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022,

subd. (b)(1).)” (Alvarado, supra, E061217, fn. omitted.)

       After a bifurcated proceeding on April 21, 2014, the court found defendant had

suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a)-(i), 1170.12, subd. (a)) and a prior

serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). “The court denied a motion to strike the

prior conviction allegation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of five years,

doubled to 10 years based on the strike prior, for the robbery conviction in count 1. The

court enhanced that sentence by a consecutive term of 10 years for the gang finding plus

one year for the weapon use finding, for a total term of 21 years for count 1. The court

then imposed a consecutive term of one year, doubled to two, for the assault conviction in

count 2, plus one additional year for the gang finding, for a term of three years overall for

that count. The court then added a five-year term for the prior serious felony, for an

aggregate term of 29 years.” (Alvarado, supra, E061217.)

       On appeal, defendant contended the court erred in allowing evidence of his 2002

conviction for assault with a firearm as a gang predicate, that there was ineffective

assistance of counsel concerning the gang expert’s testimony about defendant’s state of

mind, that insufficient evidence supported the gang enhancement, that the court erred in

                                              3
failing to sua sponte instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 225, and that there was

prejudicial cumulative error. By opinion filed October 21, 2015, this court rejected

defendant’s claims of error and affirmed the judgment. (Alvarado, supra, E061217.)

       On August 9, 2022, defendant filed a motion for modification of his sentence

pursuant to section 1170. Defendant contended the trial court erred in admitting evidence

of defendant’s 2002 prior conviction, his trial counsel rendered prejudicial ineffective

assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence supported the jury’s true finding on the gang

enhancement allegation, the court prejudicially failed to instruct the jury with

CALCRIM No. 225, and defendant was deprived of due process by the trial court’s

failure to provide a fair trial due to the aforementioned errors.

       The court indicated it had reviewed defendant’s motion. Without appointing

counsel or holding a hearing, the court denied defendant’s motion.

                                     II. DISCUSSION

       Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant’s 2002

prior conviction, his trial counsel rendered prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel,

insufficient evidence supported the jury’s true finding on the gang enhancement

allegation, the court prejudicially failed to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 225, and

defendant was deprived of due process by the trial court’s failure to provide a fair trial

due to the aforementioned errors. We affirm.

       First, the court was without jurisdiction to grant defendant’s motion. “‘[O]nce a

judgment is rendered, except for limited statutory exceptions [citations], the sentencing

court is without jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence, except pursuant to the

                                               4
provisions of section 1170, subdivision (d). [Citation.] Section 1170, subdivision (d),

allows a sentencing court on its own motion to recall and resentence, subject to the

express limitation that the court must act to recall the sentence within 120 days after

committing the defendant to prison. [Citation.] Indeed, “the court loses ‘own-motion’

jurisdiction if it fails to recall a sentence within 120 days of the original commitment.”’”

(People v. Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326.)

       The trial court rendered defendant’s judgment on May 19, 2014. Since

defendant’s judgment was final on January 19, 2016, when this court issued the remittitur

in Alvarado, supra, E061217, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief

defendant requested. (People v. Hernandez, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 325-326.)

       Second, defendant is estopped from raising the same issues raised and rejected in

his appeal from the judgment. “[A]ppellate court judgments establish the law that ‘“must

be applied in the subsequent stages of the cause”’—i.e., the law of the case—‘“and they

are res adjudicata in other cases as to every matter adjudicated.”’” (People v. Barragan

(2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 253.) A “‘decision on a matter properly presented on a prior

appeal becomes the law of the case even though it may not have been absolutely

necessary to the determination of the question whether the judgment appealed from

should be reversed. [Citations].’ [Citation.] Thus, application of the law-of-the-case

doctrine is appropriate where an issue presented and decided in the prior appeal, even if

not essential to the appellate disposition, ‘was proper as a guide to the court below on a

new trial.’” (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 442.) The “‘law-of-the-case

doctrine binds the trial court as to the law but controls the outcome only if the evidence

                                              5
on retrial or rehearing of an issue is substantially the same as that upon which the

appellate ruling was based.’” (Id. at p. 443.) Here, because all the claims raised by

defendant in the motion below and on appeal were raised in and rejected by this court in

his appeal from the judgment, he is estopped from raising them again. (See Alvarado,

supra, E061217.)

       Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have

independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.

                                    III. DISPOSITION

       The judgment is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                McKINSTER
                                                                                Acting P. J.
We concur:

MILLER
                          J.

CODRINGTON
                          J.

                                              6