Court Opinion

ID: 9568479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:04:12.406636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:18.511671
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/21/23 P. v. Zaiza CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E081236

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF116172)

 JOSE ROBERTO ZAIZA,                                                     OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Jose Roberto Zaiza, in propria persona; and Richard Schwartzberg, under

appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Jose Roberto Zaiza appeals the denial of his Penal Code section 1172.61 petition to

vacate his conviction for attempted murder. After his counsel filed a no-issue brief under

People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), Zaiza filed his own

supplemental brief. We affirm.

                                      BACKGROUND

       In 2005, the Riverside County District Attorney charged Zaiza along with a

codefendant with attempted premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), torture (§ 205),

commercial burglary (§ 459), and street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The prosecution

also alleged a number of enhancements, including that Zaiza personally inflicted great

bodily injury in committing the attempted murder and torture. Zaiza proceeded to trial,

where a jury found him guilty as charged and found all enhancement allegations true.

       In 2022 Zaiza petitioned for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court

held a hearing on the petition in April 2023. At the hearing, the People told the court

they sent Zaiza’s counsel the jury instructions used at Zaiza’s trial and “[n]one of the

applicable instructions were given, not even aiding and abetting, much less natural and

probable consequences or felony murder.” Zaiza’s counsel confirmed he reviewed the

instructions and concurred that “[n]o applicable instructions were given.” Accordingly,

the trial court denied Zaiza’s petition.2

       1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.

       2 The jury instructions discussed on the record in the trial court are not themselves
included in our record. Nevertheless, the record we have is sufficient to determine
whether the petition was properly denied.

                                             2
                                        ANALYSIS

       On Zaiza’s request, we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel

filed a brief declaring they found no arguably meritorious issues to appeal, setting out a

statement of the case, and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.

       When appealing from a postconviction order, a defendant has no constitutional

right to independent review under Anders/Wende3 if appellate counsel cannot identify

any arguable issues. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 231.) However, “[i]f the

defendant subsequently files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is

required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written

opinion.” (Id. at p. 232.) Here, after appellate counsel filed a brief notifying us Zaiza’s

appeal presented no arguable issues, we offered Zaiza an opportunity to file a personal

supplemental brief, and he did so.

       However, Zaiza’s supplemental brief makes no specific arguments. Instead, Zaiza

only generally “request[s] further review of other case [l]aw and or new Senate Bills that

were included in Defendant[’]s petition.” Delgadillo does not require such further

review—indeed, it holds defendants are not entitled to independent review of

postjudgment orders. As stated above, Delgadillo only requires that we “evaluate the

specific arguments presented in [the supplemental] brief.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th

at p. 232)

       3 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

                                              3
       Since Zaiza’s supplemental brief does not raise specific, substantive arguments,

nothing in Delgadillo requires us to discuss the merits of Zaiza’s section 1172.6 petition.

Nevertheless, we briefly address why Zaiza’s petition was properly denied.

       Under section 1172.6, “[a] person convicted of . . . attempted murder under the

natural and probable consequences doctrine . . . may file a petition with the court that

sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s . . . attempted murder . . . conviction

vacated and to be resentenced.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).)

       Here, both the People and Zaiza’s counsel agreed in the trial court that Zaiza’s

jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Section 1172.6, by its terms, applies to attempted murders only when based on the natural

and probable consequences doctrine. (People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548.)

There is no suggestion that this agreement was factually in error. Accordingly, we find

no error and affirm.

                                       DISPOSITION

       We affirm the order denying Zaiza’s petition.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                 RAPHAEL
                                                                                            J.
We concur:

McKINSTER
                Acting P. J.

MILLER
                           J.

                                              4