Opinion
B328970
04-22-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTIAN AGUILAR, Defendant and Appellant.
Derek Kowata, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 County, No. BA306490 Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed.
Derek Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
COLLINS, ACTING P. J.
INTRODUCTION
Christian Aguilar appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Aguilar filed a supplemental brief. We review the contentions Aguilar raises in his supplemental brief and affirm the order.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Conviction and sentence
As discussed in the opinion in Aguilar's direct appeal, People v. Aguilar (Nov. 10, 2009, B207295) (nonpub. opn.), 14-year-old Gabriel Reyes was shot and killed on January 9, 2002. Charges against Aguilar were filed and dismissed. Aguilar was charged again in 2007 with one count of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) with special circumstance allegations that Aguilar personally and intentionally discharged a firearm from a motor vehicle at a person outside the vehicle with the intent to inflict death (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(21)), and that Aguilar intentionally killed Reyes while an active participant in a criminal street gang, for the benefit of the gang. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22).) The information also included a firearm allegation under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), and gang allegations under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A). In January 2008, a jury found Aguilar guilty of murder, and found both special circumstances to be true. The jury also found true the firearm and gang allegations. The trial court sentenced Aguilar to 25 years to life without the possibility of parole on the murder, plus 25 years to life on the firearm enhancement. (People v. Aguilar, supra.)
B. Petition for resentencing
On April 29, 2022, Aguilar filed a form petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6.The trial court appointed counsel for Aguilar; the same attorney who represented Aguilar at trial was assigned to the case. The People opposed the petition on the grounds that Aguilar was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the jury found that Aguilar personally and intentionally discharged a firearm from a vehicle with the intent to cause death and intentionally killed the victim for the benefit of a street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(21), (22).) The People further asserted that Aguilar's jury was not instructed regarding felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The People attached the jury instructions to their opposition. Aguilar filed a request for substitution of counsel, which the trial court denied.
Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was renumbered to section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
At the hearing on Aguilar's petition, both sides submitted on the filings. The trial court denied the petition on the grounds that Aguilar failed to state a prima facie case for relief because he was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. Aguilar timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Aguilar's appellate attorney filed a brief raising no issues and requesting that this court proceed pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. Aguilar was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief (see Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231232), and did so. We evaluate the arguments set forth in that supplemental brief. (See id. at p. 232 ["If the defendant subsequently files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion"].)
Aguilar asserts that he "never had a fair trial," he "wasn't the actual shooter," and no eyewitnesses identified him at trial. He asserts that he "never pulled that trigger," so he "shouldn't get life without parole." These contentions cannot be addressed on appeal following denial of a petition for resentencing. "The mere filing of a section [1172.6] petition does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error or attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's findings." (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947.)
Aguilar also argues that his jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine However, the jury instructions included in the record do not support this contention. He further asserts that the jury was instructed on liability under an aiding and abetting theory. The record does include an aiding and abetting instruction, but the jury found that Aguilar was the actual shooter, not an aider or abettor. "A petitioner is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law if the record of conviction conclusively establishes, with no factfinding, weighing of evidence, or credibility determinations, that . . . the petitioner was the actual killer." (People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 14.) Aguilar therefore has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in denying his petition for resentencing.
In addition to rejecting the arguments Aguilar raised in his supplemental brief, we have exercised our discretion to independently review the record, and we conclude no arguable issues exist. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying relief is affirmed.
We concur: MORI, J. ZUKIN, J.