Court Opinion

ID: 9910840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 18:02:44.163132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:38.064080
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/14/23 P. v. Dayco CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        G062404

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. C-50216)

 RENE FLORES DAYCO,                                                    OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
                   No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
              Rene Flores Dayco appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing.
However, his appellate attorney was unable to find any arguable issues in the record, and
we have not detected any either. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order.
                                     BACKGROUND
              In 1983, appellant was convicted of two counts of special circumstances
murder for killing his ex-wife and mother-in-law with a meat clever. (Pen. Code, §§ 187,
subd. (a), 190.2, subds. (a)(3) [multiple murder] & (a)(18) [torture].) The trial court
sentenced him to life in prison without parole, and we affirmed the judgment on appeal.
(People v. Dayco (Oct. 11, 1985, G001120) [nonpub. opn.].)
              In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section
1172.6, formerly section 1170.95. Following a response by the People and a hearing at
which appellant was represented by appointed counsel, the trial court denied the petition
for failing to make a prima facie case.
            In this appeal, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but requesting
that we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216. We informed appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief, however he
declined to do so. Exercising our discretion and in the interest of justice, we have
examined the entire record for any arguable issues. (See id. at p. 230.) But our
examination has only confirmed appointed counsel’s conclusion that there are no
arguable issues and that appellant’s petition was properly denied.
                                      DISCUSSION
            To be eligible for resentencing, a defendant must have been convicted of
murder under the felony murder rule, the natural and probable consequences doctrine or
some other theory under which malice was imputed to him based solely on his
participation in a crime. (Pen. Code, § 1172.6, subd. (a).) However, appellant was
convicted of murder for personally killing his victims. In fact, the jury found he
intentionally tortured both of his victims to death. Because the jury was not instructed on

                                             2
any theory of imputed malice, he is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.
(People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 542, 548; People v. Cortes (2022) 75
Cal.App.5th 198, 205.) Therefore, the trial court rightly denied his petition at the prima
facie stage of the proceedings. (People v. Curiel (Nov. 27, 2023, S272238) __ Cal.5th __
[2023 WL 8178140]; People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708; People v. Lewis
(2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971.) There is no arguable basis for disturbing that decision.
                                     DISPOSTITION
              The trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.

                                                 BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

SANCHEZ, J.

MOTOIKE, J.

                                             3