Court Opinion

ID: 9912180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 19:02:48.146165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:37.866838
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/21/23 P. v. Catalan CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F086119
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. LF009916C)
                    v.

    EDY RENE CATALAN,                                                                     OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R.
Brehmer, Judge.
         William I. Parks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Meehan, J.
                                       INTRODUCTION
          In 2014, after a jury trial, appellant and defendant Edy Rene Catalan (appellant)
was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter, with gang and great bodily injury
enhancements, plus other felonies. Appellant was sentenced to 17 years eight months in
prison.
          In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1
section 1172.6. In 2022, the trial court denied the petition and found appellant was
ineligible for relief.
          On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts and
procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to
independently review the record pursuant to both People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellant submitted a letter brief. We
affirm.
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          On April 3, 2014, an information was filed in the Superior Court of Kern County
charging appellant and his codefendants Daniel Catalan (Daniel), Roberto Rodriguez
(Rodriguez), and Dennis Ruth (Ruth) with count 1, premeditated attempted murder of
German S. (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)(1)); count 2, assault with a deadly weapon on
German S. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); count 3, assault by force likely to produce great bodily
injury on Jamie B. (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)); count 4, active participation in a criminal street
gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)); and count 5, robbery of Elbardo S. (§ 212.5, subd. (c)), with
gang, great bodily injury, and deadly weapon enhancements.
Verdicts and Sentencing
          On October 28, 2014, after a joint jury trial, the jury found appellant and his
codefendants Daniel and Rodriguez not guilty of the charged offense in count 1 of

1         All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

                                                2.
attempted murder, but guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary
manslaughter (§§ 664/192, subd. (a)), with enhancements that they committed the offense
for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), personally inflicted great
bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon, a
knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)).
          Appellant and codefendants Daniel and Rodriguez were found guilty of count 2,
assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), with gang and
great bodily injury enhancements; count 3, not guilty of the charged offense of assault by
means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, but guilty of the lesser included
offense of misdemeanor assault (§ 240); guilty of count 4, active participation in a
criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), with the deadly weapon enhancement; and
guilty of count 5, second degree robbery (§ 212.5, subd. (c)), with the gang enhancement.
The court found appellant had one prior prison term enhancement. The jury was unable
to reach verdicts as to codefendant Ruth.
          On December 16, 2014, the court sentenced appellant to 17 years eight months in
prison.
          In 2018, this court filed the nonpublished opinion in the joint appeal that ordered
corrections in the abstracts of judgment, and otherwise affirmed the judgments against
appellant and codefendants Daniel and Rodriguez. (People v. Catalan et al. (Aug. 20,
2018, F070809.)
                                 APPELLANT’S PETITION
          On April 15, 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing of his conviction for
attempted voluntary manslaughter and requested appointment of counsel. He filed a
supporting declaration that consisted of a preprinted form where he checked boxes that he
was eligible for resentencing because he was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or
manslaughter following a trial, and he could not presently be convicted of murder or

                                                3.
attempted murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1,
2019.
        On April 21, 2022, the court conducted a hearing and appointed counsel to
represent appellant, set a briefing schedule for the parties, and scheduled another hearing
to determine whether the petition stated a prima facie case.2
The People’s Opposition
        On July 19, 2022, the prosecution filed opposition, and requested the trial court to
take judicial notice of the records from appellant’s jury trial and this court’s opinion that
affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. The prosecution argued appellant was convicted
as a direct aider and abettor, and he was a major participant who acted with reckless
indifference to life.
Appellant’s Reply
        In reply, appellate counsel objected to the trial court taking judicial notice of the
prior appellate opinion or relying on the prior opinion to make the prima facie finding,
and argued the court should conduct a de novo review of the record at an evidentiary
hearing.
The Trial Court’s Order
        On September 21, 2022, Judge Brehmer conducted a hearing on whether
appellant’s petition stated a prima facie case for relief. Judge Brehmer stated he had
presided over the trial, and gave a tentative ruling that appellant was ineligible for
resentencing because he could still be convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter
after the amendments to sections 188 and 189. The court invited arguments and the

2      Appellant’s opening brief erroneously states the court made a prima facie finding
at the April 21, 2022, hearing. The record shows the court never made a prima facie
finding in this case. On April 21, 2022, the court merely scheduled a hearing to
determine whether appellant’s petition stated a prima facie case.

                                               4.
parties submitted the matter. The court adopted its tentative ruling and denied the
petition.
                                       DISCUSSION
       As explained above, appellate counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to
Wende and Delgadillo. The brief included counsel’s declaration that appellant was
advised he could file his own brief with this court. This court also advised appellant that
he could file a supplemental letter brief, and the appeal would be dismissed pursuant to
Delgadillo if he failed to do so within 30 days.
       In response to this court’s order, appellant filed a letter with this court that stated
he did not have any issues or arguments to raise about his petition, but he did not want his
appeal dismissed.
       Our review of the record demonstrates the trial court correctly denied appellant’s
petition for failing to state a prima facie case because he was ineligible for relief as a
matter of law. While appellant was charged with attempted murder, the jury found him
not guilty of that charge and instead convicted him of attempted voluntary manslaughter
as a lesser included offense.
       The initial version of former section 1170.95 provided that a person who was
convicted of murder could file a petition for resentencing under certain circumstances if
convicted under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences
doctrine. (People v. Birdsall (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 859, 864–865.) Effective January 1,
2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) made substantive amendments to
former section 1170.95 “clarifying that, in some circumstances, the same relief available
to persons convicted of murder is also available to persons convicted of attempted murder
or manslaughter [citations] .…” (People v. Birdsall, at pp. 864, 865; People v. Vizcarra
(2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 377, 388.) On June 30, 2022, the statute was renumbered as
section 1172.6 without further substantive changes. (People v. Saibu (2022) 81
Cal.App.5th 709, 715, fn. 3.)

                                               5.
       The current version of section 1172.6 has thus limited resentencing to petitioners
convicted of murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter based on theories of imputed
malice. The Legislature could have but did not include attempted voluntary
manslaughter within the amended statute. It is not our role to add words to the statutory
language and we decline to do so. (People v. Chambless (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 773,
783.) “ ‘[I]nsert[ing]’ additional language into a statute ‘violate[s] the cardinal rule of
statutory construction that courts must not add provisions to statutes. [Citations.]’ ”
(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.)
                                          DISPOSITION
       The court’s order of September 21, 2022, denying appellant’s petition is affirmed.

                                              6.