Court Opinion

ID: 9943516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 18:02:26.004938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:10.637857
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/23/24 P. v. Sanchez CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D083028

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. RIF1600163)

 VICTOR LOPEZ SANCHEZ,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County,
John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed.
         Jeanine Grimmond Strong for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         Victor Lopez Sanchez appeals from an order denying his petition for

resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 His appellate counsel filed a
brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and
Sanchez filed a supplemental brief. We grant counsel’s request to take
judicial notice of our decision in appeal No. D073727 and the jury

1    All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless indicated
otherwise.
instructions and the verdict forms from Sanchez’s record of conviction. (Evid.
Code, §§ 452, subd. (c), 459.) Based on our independent review of the record,
we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      In 2016, a jury found Sanchez guilty of inflicting corporal injury upon a
spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2); assault by means of force likely to
produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3); attempted voluntary
manslaughter, as a lesser included offense of attempted murder (§§ 192,
subd. (a), 664; count 4); assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 5);
discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle (§ 246; count 6); using force or
threat of force to dissuade a witness from reporting a suspected crime to law
enforcement (§ 136.1, subds. (b) & (c); counts 7 & 9); making criminal threats
(§ 422; counts 8 & 10); discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246;
count 11); intentionally and knowingly violating a court-issued domestic
violence protective order (§ 273.6, subd. (a); count 12); possessing a controlled
substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 13); and possessing
controlled substance paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364; count 14).
As to counts 1 and 2, the jury found true allegations Sanchez personally
inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8), 12022.7, subd. (e)). As to
counts 4, 6, and 11, the jury found true allegations he personally used a
firearm (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8); 12022.53, subd. (c).) Sanchez separately
admitted allegations he had two prior convictions, which qualified as both
prior serious felony convictions and prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds.
(a), (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A).) He also admitted he was released
on bail when he committed the offense of discharging a firearm at an
inhabited dwelling (§ 12022.1).

                                         2
      Sanchez was sentenced to a total prison term of 38 years four months
for the felony counts, and a total consecutive jail term of two years six months
for the misdemeanor counts.
      In the direct appeal, this court reversed the judgment as to his
conviction for discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, remanded the
matter for further proceedings, but affirmed the judgment in all other
respects. (People v. Sanchez (Aug. 28, 2018, D073727) [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand, Sanchez was resentenced to a total prison term of 35 years six
months.
      On September 26, 2022, Sanchez filed a petition for resentencing under

former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6.2 Counsel was appointed and
filed a brief in support of resentencing. In response, the People filed a
“Request for Judicial Notice of Materials Re Latent Defects in Penal Code
§ 1172.6 Petition for Resentencing”, requesting the court take judicial notice
of the jury instructions, the opinion in the direct appeal, and the entire court
file from the original case. Counsel for Sanchez filed a reply, contending the
absence of jury instructions at Sanchez’s trial on the felony murder rule or
the natural and probable consequences doctrine should not preclude him from
section 1172.6 relief at the prima facie stage.
      After a hearing, the superior court found Sanchez failed to state a
prima facie case for relief and denied the petition. Based on the record of
conviction, including the jury instructions, the court concluded there was “no
instruction that could have allowed an improper conclusion of guilt[.]”

2     Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was renumbered to
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
                                        3
                                  DISCUSSION
      Sanchez’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and
requesting this court proceed pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216.
In its brief, counsel identifies the following issue to assist the court in its
search of the record for error: Although section 1172.6, subdivision (a) limits
resentencing relief to convictions for murder, attempted murder, and
manslaughter, should the statute be interpreted to include attempted
manslaughter?
      In his supplemental brief, Sanchez contends he is eligible for
resentencing because his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter
shows he did not act with the requisite malice.
      We conclude Sanchez is ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6
as a matter of law and no prima facie showing can be made, because Sanchez
was not convicted of a crime enumerated in section 1172.6, subdivision (a).
The amendments enacted by Senate Bill No. 775 (2020–2021 Reg. Sess.)
limited resentencing to petitioners convicted after trial of murder, attempted
murder, and voluntary manslaughter, subject to certain express
requirements. The Legislature did not include attempted manslaughter
within those provisions. “ ‘[I]nsert[ing]’ additional language into a statute
‘violate[s] the cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must not add
provisions to statutes.’ ” (People v. Guzman (2005) 35 Cal.4th 577, 587.)
“Where, as here, the Legislature makes express statutory distinctions, ‘we
must presume it did so deliberately, giving effect to the distinctions, unless
the whole scheme reveals the distinction is unintended . . . [W]e presume the
Legislature intended everything in a statutory scheme, and we should not
read statutes to omit expressed language or include omitted language.’ ”
(People v. Connor (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 669, 691.)

                                         4
      Even if Sanchez’s conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter was
within the provisions of section 1172.6, he would still be ineligible for
resentencing. During his trial, the jury was not instructed on the felony-
murder rule, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, principals and
accomplices, aiding and abetting, conspiracy, or any theory of imputed
malice. Instead, the jury was instructed under CALCRIM No’s. 600 and 603,
which required the jury to find he acted with the intent to kill. Sanchez is
thus ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law, because the
jury was not instructed on any theory of liability for attempted voluntary
manslaughter in which malice could be imputed solely based on his
participation in a crime. (See People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52;
People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 599; People v. Cortes (2022) 75
Cal.App.5th 198, 205.)
      Accordingly, based on our independent review of the record, we have
not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                             McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

KELETY, J.

                                        5