Opinion
B323345
06-14-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN CARLOS SANTANA, Defendant and Appellant.
Brad Kaiserman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Count, No. KA115259 Rob B. Villeza, Judge.
Brad Kaiserman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STRATTON, P. J.
We review this appeal pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We grant appellant's request to take judicial notice of our prior opinion (People v. Santana (July 30, 2019, B286320) [nonpub. opn.]) and affirm the order of the trial court.
A jury acquitted appellant Juan Santana of first degree murder and instead convicted him of second degree murder, second degree burglary, and receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code sections 187, subdivision (a), 459, and 496, subdivision (a). The jury found true firearms enhancements as to the murder count.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of 43 years to life in state prison. This aggregate sentence included 15 years to life for the murder, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), plus three years consecutive for the burglary. Appellant was sentenced as well to a three-year stayed sentence for receiving stolen property.
We take the facts of the offenses from our opinion affirming appellant's conviction. (People v. Santana, supra, B286320.) Appellant was convicted of Patricia Salva's murder. Salva died from gunshot wounds. The evidence of murder was somewhat circumstantial. In the days after Salva's death but before her body was discovered, Santana, his son, and his girlfriend were seen at Salva's home stealing various items, many of which were recovered from appellant's car or his ex-wife's house. Gunshot residue was found on clothing appellant was wearing the night of the murder. Police recorded him discussing how to get rid of bullet casings hidden in his son's sock and coordinating stories with his son about how they obtained Salva's property. The bullets recovered from Salva's body could have come from appellant's own firearm. There was evidence of motive and appellant's attempts to cover up the murder and find someone to cash checks stolen from Salva's home.
On August 4, 2021, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6, formerly section 1170.95. He alleged he had been convicted under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, now invalid theories by which murder may be prosecuted. The trial court appointed counsel, issued an order to show cause, and held an evidentiary hearing at which appellant testified. On August 10, 2022, the trial court denied the petition. The trial court noted the prosecutor at trial had argued that appellant "shot and killed the victim and that his actions were willful, deliberate, and with premeditation." The trial court also noted that the jury found true that allegations that Santana's personal use and discharge of the gun caused the death of the victim. The trial court found that appellant, prosecuted and convicted as the actual killer, was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On February 9, 2023, counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo. The brief raised no issues. Counsel told us he had advised appellant he may file a supplemental brief within 30 days and he had sent his client the transcripts of the trial as well as a copy of the Delgadillo brief.
On February 9, 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 brief or letter stating any ground for appeal he wanted us to consider. Appellant was advised that if no supplemental brief was timely filed, his appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
Appellant filed a supplemental brief in which he argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. We note, as did the trial court, that the prosecutor did not employ that theory in prosecuting appellant for first degree murder. The People's theory, as argued by the prosecutor and shown in the record of conviction, was that appellant was the actual killer. Petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6 are for cases where a defendant was not the killer but was held vicariously liable on one of several theories of liability identified in the statute. The statute is not simply another appellate opportunity to challenge the original judgment. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942. 947.)
We decline to engage in independent review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-232.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: GRIMES, J., VIRAMONTES, J.