Court Opinion

ID: 9930818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 19:03:41.874819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:26.502913
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/7/24 P. v. Lona CA2/2
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                                   SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                              DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                       B331258

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                                (Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. BA357891)
         v.

HENRY LONA,

         Defendant and Defendant.

      THE COURT:
      Defendant and appellant Henry Lona appeals from the denial of
his petition for vacatur of his conviction of attempted murder and for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appointed counsel
found no arguable issues and filed a brief requesting we exercise our
discretion to conduct an independent review of the record or in the
alternative, a review as set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14

1     Defendant’s petition was filed as a petition under section 1170.95
but heard and decided after the effective date of the statute’s
renumbering as section 1172.6. (See Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
      All further unattributed code sections are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise stated.
Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Following the standard articulated in
Delgadillo, we consider defendant’s supplemental brief and conduct a
limited review of the record. (See id., at pp. 230–232.) Finding no
merit to defendant’s appeal, we affirm the judgment.

                             BACKGROUND
       In 2013, defendant was convicted of both willful, deliberate and
premeditated attempted murder, and shooting at an occupied motor
vehicle. The jury found true personal firearm use and criminal street
gang allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 40
years to life in prison. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal.
(People v. Lona (Oct. 6, 2014, B246123) [nonpub. opn.].)
      After defendant’s conviction, the Legislature passed Senate Bill
No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), which amended sections 188 and 189,
the laws pertaining to felony murder and murder under the natural
and probable consequences doctrine, “to ensure that murder liability is
not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with
the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying
felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats.
2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) The Legislature passed former section
1170.95, now section 1172.6, which provides a procedure to petition for
retroactive relief for those who could not now be convicted under
sections 188 and 189 as amended effective January 1, 2019. (See
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.) That procedure has been
extended to those convicted of attempted murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); see Stats. 2021,
ch. 551, § 2.)
      In 2022, defendant filed his petition for vacatur of his attempted
murder conviction and for resentencing. As relevant here, the petition
alleged defendant had been convicted of attempted murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine, and that he could not
presently be convicted of attempted murder due to changes made to

                                   2
sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019. He also requested the
appointment of counsel.
        The trial court appointed counsel, ordered briefing, and
scheduled a hearing to determine whether defendant had made a prima
facie case for relief under section 1172.6. The prosecutor opposed the
petition on the ground that defendant was ineligible for relief as a
matter of law because no jury instructions regarding the natural and
probable consequences doctrine, aiding and abetting, or the imputation
of malice were given at defendant’s trial. Attached to the written
opposition was a copy of all jury instructions given at trial.
       Defense counsel did not deny, in either his written reply or at
oral argument, that no instructions regarding the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, aiding and abetting, or the imputation of malice
were given at trial. Instead, counsel argued the trial court should find
defendant had met this burden of showing a prima facia case of
eligibility based upon the allegations of the petition, as the bar for a
prima facie showing is “ ‘intentionally and correctly set very low.’ ”
Counsel also argued there was a question of the unanimity of the jury
because one of the jurors later submitted a declaration stating she was
pressured into changing her vote for not guilty to guilty. A copy of the
juror’s declaration was attached as an exhibit to the reply.
       On May 25, 2023, the trial court heard argument of counsel,
denied the petition and issued a memorandum of decision denying
defendant relief.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the court’s order.

                             DISCUSSION
      Where, as here, appointed defense counsel finds no arguable
issues in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction, we
are not required to conduct an independent review of the record. (See
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) However, even if we do not
independently review the record to identify unraised issues in such a

                                    3
case, we give the defendant the opportunity to file his or her own
supplemental brief or letter and we then evaluate any specific
arguments raised. (See id., at p. 232.) Here, counsel provided
defendant with a copy of the record on appeal and informed him of his
right to file his own supplemental brief. We notified defendant of
counsel’s brief, gave him 30 days to file his own letter or brief stating
any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments that he wished to
be considered, and advised him that if no supplemental brief or letter is
timely filed the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. Defendant
here has filed a supplemental brief within the time allowed. We hereby
consider his contentions and arguments.
       Defendant has renewed his counsel’s claim below that the juror’s
declaration requires a finding that defendant met his burden of making
a prima facie showing of eligibility. Defendant argues his trial attorney
was ineffective by failing to bring a motion for new trial based upon
juror misconduct and that insufficient evidence supported his
conviction. He also argues his former appellate counsel failed to raise
the issue of juror misconduct during the original appeal from the 2013
judgment. These contentions are not grounds for relief under section
1172.6 as the statute does not give a petitioner the opportunity to
resurrect alleged trial errors or have a second appeal. (People v. Flores
(2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1164, 1173–1174, citing People v. Burns (2023)
95 Cal.App.5th 862, 865; People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942,
947; People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438.)
       “Section [1172.6] applies by its terms only to attempted murders
based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (§ [1172.6],
subd. (a) [‘A person convicted of . . . attempted murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine . . . may file a petition’].)”
(People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548.) We have reviewed the
jury instructions given in defendant’s 2013 trial and have found the
record establishes that no instructions were given regarding the
natural and probable consequences doctrine or imputed malice; nor was

                                   4
there an instruction regarding aiding and abetting. Defendant is thus
ineligible for relief as a matter of law. (People v. Harden (2022) 81
Cal.App.5th 45, 52–53, 55–56.) The record of conviction contains facts
refuting the allegations of the petition as a matter of law such that no
prima facie showing can be made. The petition was properly denied.
(People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.)

                           DISPOSITION
      The order denying the section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

__________________________________________________________________
 ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J. CHAVEZ, J.           HOFFSTADT, J.

                                    5