Opinion
B309086
06-05-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL AGUILAR, Defendant and Appellant.
Lynda A. Romero, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. NA072796 Stephen A. Marcus. Affirmed.
Lynda A. Romero, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Amanda V. Lopez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CURREY, Acting P.J.
In 2010, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Daniel Aguilar of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) The jury found various special circumstances true, including that Aguilar "intentionally killed the victim by means of lying in wait." (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15).) In 2019, Aguilar filed a section 1170.95 resentencing petition in the trial court. The trial court denied relief, concluding Aguilar was ineligible as a matter of law because he had not been tried under the felony murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the statute by its new code section. That section provides relief for certain individuals convicted of imputed-malice murder. (See § 1172.6.)
Aguilar timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On April 9, 2021, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Aguilar did not respond to the letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing. On November 5, 2021, this court declined to independently review the record and dismissed the appeal as abandoned. (People v. Aguilar (Nov. 5, 2021; B309086 [nonpub. opn.].)
The California Supreme Court granted review (case no. S272111) and held the case behind People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). On March 22, 2023, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court with directions to vacate its decision and reconsider whether to exercise its discretion to conduct an independent review of the record or provide any other relief in light of Delgadillo. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.528(d).)
Aguilar's appellate counsel filed a supplemental brief requesting this court: (1) conduct an independent review of the record; or (2) send Aguilar a letter complying with the notice requirements outlined in Delgadillo. The Attorney General filed a supplemental brief arguing because any deficiency in the notice letter to Aguilar was harmless, this appeal may be dismissed without the issuance of a new notice letter or the court's independent review of the record.
We exercise our discretion to conduct a Wende review (see Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232) and conclude no arguable issues exist. As the trial court correctly noted, the record demonstrates Aguilar was not convicted of imputed-malice murder, and is therefore ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Aguilar's section 1172.6 relief is affirmed.
We concur COLLINS, J., MORI, J.