Opinion
D080865
07-17-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KASSIM ALHIMIDI, Defendant and Appellant.
Kassim Alhimidi, in pro. per.; and Denise M. Rudasill, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 San Diego County, No. SCE325289, Frank L. Birchak, Judge. Affirmed.
Kassim Alhimidi, in pro. per.; and Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
In 2014, a jury convicted Kassim Alhimidi of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found he had personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Alhimidi was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 26 years to life in prison.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Alhimidi appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Alhimidi (Nov. 24, 2015, D066515).)
In 2022, Alhimidi filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court determined Alhimidi was prosecuted as the actual killer of the victim and that he personally used a deadly weapon to commit the offense.
The court also determined the jury was not instructed on aiding and abetting, felony murder or natural and probable consequences. The court found Alhimidi was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.
Alhimidi filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error consistent with the procedure described in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Alhimidi of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a brief which does not discuss any issues relevant to the denial of the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. We will discuss the supplemental brief later in this opinion.
The facts of the offense are discussed at length in our prior opinion. We see no purpose in repeating that discussion here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying the petition for resentencing without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing.
In his supplemental brief, Alhimidi does not address any issue relevant to the question of the propriety of the denial of his petition for resentencing. His discussion is focused entirely on his claim of innocence and alleged errors in the conduct of the original trial. This appeal does not relate to the trial on guilt which was resolved in our prior appeal. Alhimidi has not identified any potentially meritorious issues relevant to this appeal.
We have reviewed the record consistent with Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Alhimidi's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J., IRION, J.