Court Opinion

ID: 9896621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-13 21:05:17.981282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:10.513258
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/13/23 P. v. Arias CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                    B325663

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. KA100834-01)
         v.

TOMAS ARIAS, Jr.

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Rogelio Delgado, Judge. Affirmed.

      Janyce Keiko Imata Blair, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                    ——————————
      Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we
review this appeal of an order denying a petition for resentencing
brought under Penal Code section 1172.6. We affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
       On October 23, 2013, the People filed an information
charging appellant Tomas Arias, Jr., with one count of murder in
violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a) and two
counts of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of Penal
Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1).1 A jury convicted Arias of
second degree murder and both counts of possession of a firearm
by a felon and it found true gang and prior conviction
enhancements, including that Arias personally and intentionally
discharged a firearm causing death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The
trial court sentenced Arias to an aggregate term of 40 years to
life plus five years. This court affirmed the judgment of
conviction. (People v. Arias (Mar. 15, 2017, B269691) [nonpub.
opn.].)
       The facts are brief for purposes of the resentencing petition
and we set them out for context only. On the evening of
December 9, 2012, Arias approached two males walking on a
street in Pomona, California. Arias stated “Puente” and then
shot and killed one of the men. (People v. Arias, supra, B269691.)
       On December 27, 2021, Arias filed a petition for
resentencing under former section 1170.95. now recodified as
section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) The trial court
appointed counsel, ordered and considered briefing, and held a
hearing to determine if Arias had established a prima facie case

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
of eligibility for resentencing. On September 15, 2022, the trial
court found Arias ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.
The trial court reviewed the jury instructions of his trial and
found that the jury had not been instructed on the felony murder
rule or on any aiding and abetting theories where malice could be
imputed. It noted the jury found Arias guilty of second degree
murder as the shooter and the jury had found true that Arias had
personally and intentionally discharged a handgun causing the
victim’s death. The trial court denied the petition without
issuing an order to show cause or proceeding to an evidentiary
hearing. Arias filed a notice of appeal.
       We appointed counsel to represent Arias on appeal. On
July 19, 2023, counsel filed a no-issue brief pursuant to People v.
Delgadillo. Counsel advised us she had told appellant he may
file his own supplemental brief within 30 days. Counsel declared
she intended to send appellant transcripts of the record on appeal
as well as a copy of the brief.
       On July 19, 2023, this court sent Arias a notice that a brief
raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised him he
had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief or letter
stating any ground for appeal he believes we should consider. We
also advised him that if he did not file a supplemental brief, the
appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
       On August 24, 2023, Arias filed a supplemental brief.
Arias contends: 1) newly discovered evidence establishes his
innocence; 2) Detectives Andrew Bebon, Greg Freeman and
Shope from the Pomona Police Department filed false and
misleading police reports, constituting official government
misconduct; 3) the prosecution knowingly used false and

                                 3
fabricated evidence; 4) the prosecution failed to disclose Brady2
evidence; 5) the detectives threatened, coerced and fed false
information to prosecution witnesses; 6) the prosecution failed to
correct evidence it knew was false and fabricated; 7) the trial
court should have stricken the firearm enhancements; 8) the
gang enhancements should be stricken under newly amended
section 186.22 and Assembly Bill No. 333; 9) defense counsel
provided ineffective assistance by allowing the prosecution to
admit confidential informants’ testimony, not impeaching the
false and fabricated evidence and failing to offer an expert
witness on false identification and inconsistent false statements;
10) Arias was denied his right to confront and cross examine the
confidential informant; and 11) the trial court admitted hearsay
evidence as factual evidence.
       These contentions are not properly raised in an appeal from
the denial of a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. Petitions
for resentencing carry out the intent of Senate Bill No. 1437
(2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) which was “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); People v. Lewis
(2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967.) Petitions under section 1172.6, then,
address convictions where a defendant was not the killer, but was
held vicariously liable on one of several theories of liability
identified in the statute. The petition to recall sentence under
section 1172.6 is not another opportunity to challenge the
original judgment on other grounds. (People v. Farfan (2021)

2     Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.

                                 4
71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [mere filing of a section 1172.6 petition
does not afford a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error or
attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s
findings].)
       We are not otherwise required to conduct an independent
review of the record in an appeal from an order denying a petition
for resentencing filed pursuant to section 1172.6 and we decline
to do so. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                    STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                                5