Court Opinion

ID: 9898727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 00:03:36.531276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:13.904741
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/14/23 P. v. Pedroza CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        G062336

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 08HF1486)

 CESAR ARIEL PEDROZA,                                                  OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Louis
Clapp, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                             *               *               *
              In 2013, Cesar Ariel Pedroza was convicted of attempted murder,
conspiracy, and street terrorism and was ultimately sentenced to an aggregate term of 25
years in state prison.
              In 2022, Pedroza filed a petition pursuant to former Penal Code section
1170.95 (now § 1172.6) 1 seeking resentencing on his murder conviction. The trial court
denied the petition.
              Pedroza filed a notice of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel filed an
opening brief raising no arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).) In the interests of justice, this court has reviewed the record and found no
arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 [“if the appellate
court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to conduct its own independent review of
the record in the interest of justice”].) Thus, we affirm the order of the trial court.

                                               I
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
              We draw the facts from our prior opinion. “[O]n July 28, 2008, defendant
was 17 years old. Defendant, who was a Varrio Little Town gang member, went to a
retail store with fellow gang members Salvador Burciaga, Oscar Ramos, and Nestor
Lopez. They purchased several items, including a distinctive hat. The presence of all
four was recorded on store video.
              “After they left, all four got into a car, which, according to a statement later
given to police by Ramos, was driven by defendant. They stopped at Burciaga’s house.
Burciaga went inside and came back out with a shotgun. Thereafter, they went to a
location in Costa Mesa.

1
 Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6,
with no change in text (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). Subsequent statutory references are to
the Penal Code.

                                               2
              “Several people were outside, including 15-year-old Angelic P. A witness
reported seeing a man with a sawed-off shotgun running toward him, asking ‘where you
guys from?’ Angelic P. was talking to a friend when she heard people screaming and
running, and when she looked behind her there was someone running toward her with a
shotgun, his face covered in a hoodie and wearing a hat. She tried to run but she tripped
and fell, and then the man, later identified as Burciaga, shot her.
              “Angelic P. suffered from numerous injuries, including a permanent
collapsed lung and a shotgun pellet lodged in her heart. Numerous other pellets damaged
other organs, including her colon, liver and spleen. She was hospitalized for two months,
and when she went home she continued to have an open stomach wound. She was
scarred from her chest to her pelvis.
              “The police found a hat at the scene, which was recovered and traced to the
hat purchased at the retail store by defendant and his companions. Approximately a week
later, the police stopped a car Burciaga was driving. Defendant was also in the car. A
symbol of Varrio Little Town was etched in the hood of the car.
              “Defendant was arrested and read his rights. During an interview with
police, defendant admitted he was present but claimed he did not participate in the
shooting. He said he was in the backseat with Lopez and Burciaga was in the front
passenger seat.” (People v. Pedroza (Nov. 8, 2016, G049089) [nonpub. opn.], fn.
omitted.)
              In March 2013, Pedroza was convicted of premeditated and deliberate
attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)); street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd.
(a)); and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). Numerous enhancements
were also found true, including the allegation that a gang member vicariously discharged
a firearm, causing great bodily injury (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subds. (d),
(e)(1)). (People v. Pedroza, supra, G049089.) This court remanded for resentencing
pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, because Pedroza was 17 years old

                                              3
at the time the crimes were committed. We affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
(People v. Pedroza, supra, G049089.)
              On remand, the court sentenced Pedroza to 25 years in state prison for
attempted murder, enhanced by section 12022.53, subdivision (c).2 The remaining counts
were stayed, stricken for sentencing purposes, or sentenced concurrently.
              On July 13, 2022, Pedroza filed a petition pursuant to former section
1170.95. His petition stated that he could not be convicted of murder or attempted
murder under current law and requested resentencing. The court appointed counsel. The
matter was briefed by Pedroza’s counsel and the district attorney.
              On February 17, 2023, the court denied the petition at the prima facie stage.
The court determined that based on “the record of conviction, including the jury
instructions and verdicts, shows that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of
law and thus fails to make a prima facie showing for relief. The jury instructions given to
the jury properly instructed the jury on attempted murder, aiding and abetting, and
conspiracy to commit murder. The jury instructions did not include any instructions on
the natural and probable consequences doctrine, felony murder, or any other theory where
malice could be imputed. Therefore, in finding the petitioner guilty of attempted murder,
the record of conviction shows that the jury necessarily found that the petitioner acted
with intent to kill. As such, the petitioner could clearly be convicted of attempted murder
under current law.”

2
 The court sentenced Pedroza under section 12022.53, subdivision (c), as a lesser
included of section 12022.53, subdivisions (d), (e)(1), finding it would be an Eighth
Amendment violation to do otherwise.

                                               4
              Pedroza filed a timely notice of appeal. After counsel filed a brief stating it
found no arguable issues (see Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436), we issued an order granting
Pedroza 30 days to file a supplemental brief. He did not do so.

                                              II
                                       DISCUSSION
              When defendant’s counsel identifies no arguable issues on appeal, an
appellate court independently reviews the record for arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements.
First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is meritorious. That
is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a
reasonable potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if
resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of
the judgment.” (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
              After independently reviewing the record, this court has found no arguable
issues. The trial court properly limited its review to the record of conviction and did not
engage in impermissible factfinding at the prima facie stage. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11
Cal.5th 952, 971; People v. Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 980, abrogated on other
grounds by Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 963.) The fact that the jury instructions did not
instruct the jury on any theory that would be precluded under current law, such as natural
and probable consequences or felony murder, lead to the conclusion that the jury could
only have found that Pedroza acted with the intent to kill. Accordingly, he is precluded
from relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law.

                                              5
                                          III
                                   DISPOSITION
            The trial court’s order denying Pedroza’s section 1172.6 petition is
affirmed.

                                                MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

DELANEY, J.

                                           6