Court Opinion

ID: 9943150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 19:03:41.5125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:15.727144
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Rivera CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

 THE PEOPLE                                                   B331806

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                          (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No.
           v.                                                 TA050108)

 OMAR L. RIVERA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Connie R. Quinones, Judge. Affirmed.
      Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal
for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance by Respondent.
      In 1998, a jury convicted Omar L. Rivera of premeditated
attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), and found
true the allegations that Rivera personally used a firearm
(§ 12022.5) and personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the
victim (§ 12022.7). The trial court sentenced Rivera to life with
the possibility of parole, plus a determinate term of 13 years in
prison. The Court of Appeal affirmed Rivera’s conviction on
direct appeal.
       In 2022, Rivera petitioned for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95). After appointing counsel
and receiving briefs from the People and Rivera, the trial court
held a hearing and denied the petition based on its finding that
Rivera did not present a prima facie case for relief. The court
found that Rivera was convicted as the actual perpetrator; the
jury was not instructed on aiding and abetting or the natural and
probable consequences theory of liability for attempted murder.
       Rivera appealed, and this court appointed counsel to
represent him. After examining the record, Rivera’s attorney
filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking that we follow
the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216. We invited Rivera to submit a supplemental brief.
       Rivera submitted a two-page letter in response that
requests we conduct an independent review of the record. He
contends that (1) counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to investigate other individuals who were identified in the
police report or to call those individuals to testify at trial; (2) the
police never interviewed Rivera regarding the crime; (3) the
police report states that the victim was shot with a revolver, but

      1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
pistol casings were introduced as evidence at trial; and (4)
Rivera’s inability to understand English prevented his attorney
from fully advising him of his situation. We limit our
consideration to the enumerated issues. (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 232 [where a defendant’s attorney finds no arguable
issues in an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition
and the defendant files a supplemental brief, “the Court of
Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented
in that brief and to issue a written opinion,” but the question of
whether to conduct an independent review of the entire record is
“wholly within the court’s discretion”].)
       None of the arguments raised in Rivera’s supplemental
brief address his eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6
or have any bearing on whether Rivera could “presently be
convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to
Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1172.6,
subd. (a)(3).) Rivera’s arguments accordingly provide no basis for
reversal. (See, e.g., People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428,
438 [section 1172.6 “does not permit a petitioner to establish
eligibility on the basis of alleged trial error”].)
                           DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order denying Rivera’s section 1172.6
petition is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     MOOR, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

            KIM, J.

            LEE, J.

     Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.