Court Opinion

ID: 9363285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 19:02:08.445727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:30.415355
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/13/23 P. v. Aguirre 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                        G061758

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 05SF0271)

 NOEL ANUAR AGUIRRE,                                                   OPI NION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F.
Hanson, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                             *               *               *
              The trial court denied defendant Noel Anuar Aguirre’s Penal Code section
1170.95 petition seeking to vacate his two attempted murder convictions (now Pen. Code,
          1
§ 1172.6). The court denied the petition because “the jury specifically found that the
attempted murders were committed willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation and
that petitioner personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury.”
              Aguirre filed a notice of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel filed an
opening brief raising no arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende).) Aguirre did not file a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
              In the interests of justice, this court has reviewed the record and found no
arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 [“if the appellate
court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to conduct its own independent review of
the record in the interest of justice”].) Thus, we affirm the order of the trial court.

                                               I
                                PROCEDURAL HISTORY
              In 2007, a jury convicted Aguirre of two counts of attempted premeditated
murder and one count of street terrorism. The jury found true allegations that Aguirre
committed the attempted murders for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and personally
discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. The court found true a prior strike
allegation. The court sentenced Aguirre to 50 years to life, plus nine years. This court
affirmed the judgment as modified. (People v. Aguirre et al. (Nov. 19, 2008, G039307)
[nonpub. opn.].)
              In March 2022, Aguirre filed a postjudgment petition seeking to vacate his
attempted murder convictions and to be resentenced. (§ 1172.6.) The prosecution filed a

1
  Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The Legislature
renumbered former section 1170.95 without substantive change, effective June 30, 2022.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                               2
response, which included a copy of the information, the jury instructions used in the 2002
trial, a copy of the verdict forms, and the underlying unpublished opinion.
              In August 2022, the trial court conducted a prima facie hearing and denied
Aguirre’s petition in a written ruling: “Without reviewing the facts underlying
petitioner’s conviction, the record of conviction clearly establishes that petitioner was the
actual perpetrator of the attempted murder and that he acted with the intent to kill. The
jury was never instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” Aguirre
filed a notice of appeal.

                                              II
                                       DISCUSSION
              When appointed counsel has identified no arguable issues on appeal, the
appellate court independently reviews the record for any arguable issues. (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two
elements. First, the issue must be one which . . . is meritorious. That is not to say that
the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable
potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved
favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the
judgment.” (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
              Here, after independently reviewing the record, we have similarly found no
arguable issues. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 442, fn. 3.) The absence of an
instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine and the jury’s true finding
on the firearm enhancement confirms Aguirre is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6

                                              3
                  2
as a matter of law. Thus, the trial court properly denied the section 1172.6 petition.
(See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961-970.)

                                            III
                                       DISPOSITION
              The order is affirmed.

                                                  MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

DELANEY, J.

2
 It is well established that “the felony-murder rule is inapplicable to attempted murder as
well as aiding and abetting an attempted murder.” (People v. Patterson (1989) 209
Cal.App.3d 610, 614.)

                                             4