Court Opinion

ID: 9943030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 17:02:46.089929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:57.292220
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Villaneda CA4/2
See Dissenting Opinion

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E082471

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF107908)

 ALFRED VILLANEDA,                                                       OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge.

(Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to

art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.

         Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
          On April 13, 2004, a jury found defendant and appellant Alfred Villaneda guilty of

first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1),1 during which he discharged a

firearm proximately causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and five counts of felony

preventing/dissuading a witness by threats (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1), counts 2-6).2 Defendant

thereafter admitted having suffered four prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The

court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life, plus 19 years of imprisonment. (Villaneda,

supra, E036670.)

          Defendant appealed. This court reversed and remanded the matter for

resentencing, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. On remand, the court resentenced

defendant 50 years to life, plus 10 years of imprisonment.3 (Villaneda, supra, E036670.)

          On May 30, 2023, defendant submitted a request for resentencing pursuant to

section 1172.6. After a hearing on October 20, 2023, at which defendant was represented

by counsel, the trial court denied the petition.

          On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v.

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case,

requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error,

          1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
stated.

          2 We take judicial notice of our prior opinion from defendant’s appeal from the
original judgment (People v. Villaneda (Mar. 16, 2006, E036670) [nonpub. opn.]). (Evid.
Code, § 459.)

          3 On November 13, 2023, the court struck defendant’s prior prison term
enhancements, resentencing defendant to 50 years to life, plus six years of imprisonment.

                                               2
and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in determining

defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

       We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We

noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed

one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the

record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the

appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)

                                      DISPOSITION

       The appeal is dismissed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                McKINSTER
                                                                                              J.

I concur:

RAPHAEL
                           J.

                                              3
[People v. Villaneda, E082471]

RAMIREZ, P. J., Dissenting.

       I respectfully dissent. Our Supreme Court has afforded reviewing courts

discretion with respect to the disposition of postconviction appeals in which appointed

appellate counsel has filed a no-issues brief and defendant did not file a supplemental

brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) For the reasons set forth in

People v. Griffin (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 329, 333-337, I would exercise that discretion to

conduct an independent review of the record.

                                                               RAMIREZ
                                                                                          P. J.

                                             4