Court Opinion

ID: 9840675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 19:05:14.104022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:00:03.158869
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/19/23 P. v. Sotomayor 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         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                             B328192

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        (Los Angeles County
                                                                            Super. Ct. No. BA295122)
           v.

    ELIANA SOTOMAYOR,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      THE COURT:
      Defendant and appellant Eliana Sotomayor (defendant)
appeals from the denial of her petition for vacatur of her murder
conviction and for resentencing under former Penal Code section
1170.95, now section 1172.6.1 After examination of the record,

1     Effective June 30, 2022, Penal Code section 1170.95 was
renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022,
ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the section by its new numbering
only.

      All further unattributed code sections are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise stated.
defendant’s appointed counsel found no arguable issues and filed
a brief requesting we exercise our discretion to conduct an
independent review of the record, citing People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Following the standard
articulated in Delgadillo, we consider defendant’s supplemental
brief and conduct a limited review of the record. (Id. at pp. 230-
232.) Finding no merit to defendant’s appeal, we affirm the
judgment.
                          BACKGROUND
       In 2007, a jury convicted defendant of attempted murder
and found true the allegation that the offense was committed
willfully, deliberately and with premeditation within the
meaning of section 664, subdivision (a).2 Defendant was also
convicted of one count of first degree residential burglary and
three counts of assault with a deadly weapon against three peace
officers. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. (People v.
Sotomayor, supra, B207064.)
       After defendant’s conviction, the Legislature passed Senate
Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), amending sections 188 and
189, the laws pertaining to felony murder and murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine, “to ensure that

2       The jury also found that in the commission of the
attempted murder defendant had personally used a firearm
within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b). That
true finding was stricken on appeal and the matter remanded for
resentencing on that count. On remand defendant was sentenced
to life in prison plus 46 years. (See People v. Sotomayor (Aug. 27,
2009, B207064) [nonpub. opn.].)

                                 2
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).)
Section 1172.6 provides a procedure for those convicted of murder
or attempted murder to seek retroactive relief if they could not
now be convicted under the amended laws. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a);
see People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.)
       On May 27, 2022, defendant filed a section 1172.6 petition.
The trial court issued an order that the petition was identical to
the petition filed March 23, 2022 for which the court appointed
counsel on April 29, 2022. It was also ordered that a handwritten
declaration attached to the petition sought relief by way of
habeas corpus. The court dismissed the May petition without
prejudice to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and
proceeded on the March petition. As the March petition does not
appear in the appellate record we presume the court’s order that
the two petitions are identical is correct. (See Evid. Code, § 664.)
We thus look to the allegations of the May petition to conduct our
review.
       The petition alleged an information had been filed against
defendant that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory
of felony murder, the natural and probable consequences
doctrine, or other theory under which malice is imputed to a
person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. The
petition also alleged that defendant was convicted of attempted
murder and could not now be convicted of attempted murder
because of the changes to sections 188 and 189 effective January
1, 2019. The prosecutor filed a response to the petition, attaching
copies of the opinion in People v. Sotomayor, supra, B207064, the

                                 3
jury instructions given at defendant’s 2007 trial, and the
attempted murder verdict returned by the jury. Defense counsel
filed a reply and a hearing was held to determine whether
defendant had made a prima facie showing of eligibility under
section 1172.6 on December 8, 2022. The trial court heard the
argument of counsel and took the matter under submission.
       The trial court issued a memorandum of decision on
December 14, 2022, indicating that it had reviewed the jury
instructions, and found the jury had been given CALCRIM
No. 600, which required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant acted with the intent to kill. The jury was also given
CALCRIM No. 601, which instructed the jury that for it to find
the attempted murder was premeditated, the People must have
proven the attempted murder was committed willfully, and with
deliberation and premeditation. The court noted there were no
instructions regarding aiding and abetting or the natural and
probable consequences doctrine. The trial court concluded
defendant was convicted as the actual perpetrator, not under any
theory of imputed malice. Finding defendant had failed to make
a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under section 1172.6,
the court denied the petition.
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the court’s
order.
                           DISCUSSION
       After examination of the record, appointed counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues. Where, as here, appointed
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, we give defendant the opportunity

                                  4
to file his or her own supplemental brief or letter and we then
evaluate any specific arguments raised. (Id. at p. 232.)
        Here, counsel provided defendant with a copy of the record
on appeal and informed her of her right to file her own
supplemental brief. We then notified defendant of counsel’s brief,
and gave her 30 days to file her own letter or brief stating any
grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments she wished to
be considered, and advised her that if no supplemental brief or
letter is timely filed the court may dismiss the appeal as
abandoned.
        Defendant filed a supplemental letter within the time
allowed but raised no issue regarding her section 1172.6 petition.
Instead, defendant realleged most of the facts which appear in
the declaration attached to her section 1172.6 petition relating to
her claim of battered women’s syndrome. Such allegations may
be addressed by way of habeas corpus, not section 1172.6. (See
generally § 1473.5; In re Walker (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 533.)
        If the record of conviction contains facts refuting the
allegations of the petition as a matter of law, no prima facie
showing can be made, and the petition is properly denied.
(People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.) For example,
where the record shows no jury instructions were given regarding
felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine,
or that petitioner was the actual perpetrator, she is ineligible for
relief as a matter of law. (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th
45, 52-53, 55-56.)
        Like the trial court, we have reviewed the jury instructions
included with the prosecutor’s response to the petition and agree
with the trial court’s findings that CALCRIM No. 600, regarding
the elements of attempted murder, required the People to prove

                                 5
defendant acted with the intent to kill, and that CALCRIM
No. 601 instructed the jury that to find the attempted murder
premeditated, the People must have proven the attempted
murder was committed willfully and with deliberation and
premeditation. “Willfully” is defined in the instruction as
intending to kill when she acted, and “premeditation” is defined
as deciding to kill before acting.
       Also like the trial court we found no instructions regarding
aiding and abetting, thereby demonstrating defendant was the
sole participant in the crime. We also found no instructions
regarding the felony murder rule or the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. Our review of the verdict confirms the
jury found defendant premeditated the attempt to murder the
victim. The verdict and the instructions demonstrate defendant
was the actual perpetrator who acted with an intent to kill, and
thus ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law.
(See People v. Harden, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at pp. 55-56.)
The trial court did not err in denying the petition.
                            DISPOSITION
       The order denying the section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

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

                                 6