Court Opinion

ID: 9408195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 19:05:43.666964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.664711
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/11/23 P. v. Hernandez 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                     B323898

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. VA103489-01
         v.

GILBERT HERNANDEZ,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles Count, Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed.

     Gloria C. Cohen, 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 from an order denying a petition for
resentencing. We affirm.
               PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On January 21, 2010, a jury convicted appellant Gilbert
Hernandez of first degree premeditated murder. The jury found
true that appellant had used a knife, a deadly weapon, inflicting
great bodily injury on the victim of the offense. Appellant was
sentenced to 25 years to life on the murder and one year for the
use of a knife in committing the offense.
       The facts underlying the conviction are straightforward for
purposes of the petition for resentencing. Appellant and the
victim encountered each other in a sports bar. They exchanged
words and began to fight. Appellant pulled out a knife and
stabbed the victim, who died of his wounds.
       On February 8, 2022, appellant filed a petition for
resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 (renumbered
from section 1170.95 by Statutes 2022, chapter 58, Section 10,
effective June 30, 2022). The trial court denied the petition on
the ground that appellant was the single actual killer. Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal.
       We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On
April 17, 2023, counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo,
raising no issues. Counsel advised us she told appellant he may
file his own supplemental brief within 30 days. Counsel sent
appellant transcripts of the record on appeal as well as a copy of
the brief.
       On April 17, 2023, this court sent appellant a notice that a
brief raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised
appellant he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental

                                 2
brief or letter stating any ground for appeal he believes we should
consider. We also advised appellant that if he did not file a
supplemental brief, the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
       On May 17, 2023, appellant filed a supplemental brief. He
first asks us to take judicial notice of the statement of facts in the
appellate opinion affirming his conviction. (People v. Hernandez,
(May 19, 2011, B223062) [nonpub. opn.].) We grant that request.
       Next appellant expresses the great remorse he feels and
has always felt for the murder, stating that it was never his
intention to kill the victim. He does not dispute his role as the
actual killer; instead he asks us to “revisit the issue of
premeditation and deliberation” as he believes the evidence at
trial was insufficient to support the jury’s findings. He asks us to
invoke our power under Penal Code section 1181, subdivision 6,
“to mitigate the degree of the charge to reflect what actually
occurred.”
       A person is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law if
the record of conviction conclusively establishes, with no
factfinding, weighing of evidence, or credibility determinations,
that (1) the petitioner was the actual killer, or (2) the petitioner
was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided,
abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or
assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first
degree, (3) the petitioner was a major participant in the
underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human
life (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §4, eff. Jan. 1, 2019), or (4) the
petitioner acted with malice aforethought that was not imputed
based solely on participation in the crime. (Pen. Code, §188,
subd. (a)(3).) An individual who personally killed the victim is
not entitled to resentencing relief. (People v. Delgadillo, supra,

                                  3
14 Cal.5th at p. 233 [defendant “not entitled to any relief under
section 1172.6” because he “was the actual killer and the only
participant in the killing”]; People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th
1, 4 [actual killer refers to someone who personally killed the
victim].) Appellant acknowledges he wielded the knife that killed
the victim. He is not entitled to resentencing relief under Penal
code section 1172.6.
       Appellant next contends the evidence is insufficient to
convict him of premeditation and deliberation. This contention is
not properly raised in an appeal from the denial of a Penal Code
section 1172.6 petition. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th
942, 947 [the mere filing of a section 1172.6 petition does not
afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial
error].)
       We are not otherwise required to conduct an independent
review of the record in the context of an appeal from an order
denying a petition for resentencing filed pursuant to Penal Code
section 1172.6 and we decline to do so. (People v. Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.)

                                 4
                         DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                       STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             WILEY, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                              5