Court Opinion

ID: 9918867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 19:03:26.000302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:27.528987
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/16/24 P. v. Cabrera CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,                                                  2d Crim. No.B330436
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. BA214174)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County)

v.

SERGIO CABRERA,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      Sergio Cabrera appeals an order denying his petition for
resentencing. (Pen. Code, § 1172.6.)1 This is a People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 appeal.
      In 2001, Cabrera was convicted of 1) attempted murder
(§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), with findings that he personally and
intentionally discharged a handgun causing great bodily injury
and acted with premeditation (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); 2) assault
with a firearm upon an officer (§ 245, subd, (d)(1)); 3) exhibiting a
firearm in the presence of an officer (§ 417, subd. (c)); and 4)

         1   All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246), with findings that
he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial
court sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole
for attempted murder with a consecutive term of 25 years to life
for the firearm enhancement. It sentenced him to a concurrent
term of 16 years to life for assault with a firearm on a police
officer, and stayed the sentences for the remaining two offenses
under section 654.
       In 2004, we affirmed the conviction and found the evidence
was sufficient to support the judgment. (People v. Cabrera (Aug.
31, 2004, B153549) [nonpub. opn.].)
       On September 30, 2022, Cabrera filed a petition for
resentencing. (Former § 1170.95, now § 1172.6.)
       The People opposed the petition stating, “The jury was not
instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory of
culpability. The jury was not instructed on aiding and abetting.
Petitioner was prosecuted and convicted as the actual perpetrator
who committed this crime with actual malice and therefore
cannot avail himself of the relief offered pursuant to Penal Code
section 1172.6.”
       The trial court denied the petition. It found Cabrera had
only “filed a boilerplate petition” and did not meet his burden to
establish a prima facie case for the issuance of an order to show
cause. He was the “actual attempted” killer who is not eligible
for relief.
       We appointed counsel for Cabrera for this appeal. Counsel
filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216,
stating there were no arguable issues for appeal. Cabrera filed a
supplemental brief.

                                 2
                            DISCUSSION
       Cabrera contends he made a prima facie showing for an
order to show cause hearing because he is eligible for
resentencing. He claims the jury was not properly instructed and
was not given the opportunity to find him guilty of a lesser
included offense. We disagree.
       “Senate Bill 1437 ‘amend[s] the felony murder rule and the
natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to
murder, 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.
Gutierrez-Salazar (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 411, 417.) In 2021, the
Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 775 (2021 Reg. Sess.). It
allowed defendants convicted of attempted murder to file
resentencing petitions. (People v. Hurtado (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th
887, 891.) But relief is not available to defendants convicted of
attempted murder who are the actual shooters. (Id. at p. 893.)
       The trial court correctly found that Cabrera was not
eligible for relief because he was the actual shooter. Cabrera has
not cited to the trial transcripts to show otherwise. He has not
shown that the trial court’s findings in denying the petition were
not accurate. The court noted that evidence showed “[Officer]
Loza testified that Cabrera ‘pulled out a gun, turned around as
he was running’ and pointed the gun at him and the other
officers.” The court said, “[T]he jury found [Cabrera] personally
and intentioned discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury
to Mr. Garcia.” It also found Cabrera “committed ‘willful,
deliberate, and premeditated’ attempted murder.” Cabrera has

                                 3
also not shown that the People’s position in its opposition to his
petition was inaccurate.
       Cabrera claims the jury was not instructed on the intent to
kill issue. But that is not the case. The jury was instructed: “To
constitute willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted
murder, the would-be slayer must weigh and consider the
question of killing and the reasons for and against such a choice
and, having in mind the consequences, decides to kill and makes
a direct but ineffectual act to kill another human being.” (Italics
added.)
       Cabrera contends the jury was not given the choice to find
a lesser included offense. But the jury was instructed: “If you are
not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is
guilty of the crime charged in Count 1, you may nevertheless
convict him of any lesser crime . . . .”
       Cabrera appears to claim that he made a sufficient prima
facie showing for the issuance of an order to show cause for an
evidentiary hearing. But the trial court found he filed “a
boilerplate petition” that was insufficient to support a prima facie
showing. Cabrera has not cited to the trial transcripts to make a
sufficient prima facie showing for resentencing relief.
                           DISPOSITION
       The order is affirmed.
             NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             YEGAN, J.               CODY, J.

                                 4
                     Henry J. Hall, Judge

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

                ______________________________

     J. Kahn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               5