From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Caseros

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Jun 20, 2024
No. B333558 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2024)

Opinion

B333558

06-20-2024

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWIN CASEROS, Defendant and Appellant.

Susan Morrow Maxwell, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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. BA318905-02 Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Affirmed.

Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

STRATTON, P. J.

Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), we review this appeal of an order denying appellant's petition for resentencing brought under Penal Code section 1172.6. We affirm.

Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

BACKGROUND

On June 30, 2010, a jury convicted appellant and three codefendant accomplices of first degree murder in violation of section 187, subdivision (a). The jury found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed while appellant and his accomplices were active members in a criminal street gang. The jury also found appellant and his accomplices guilty of premeditated attempted murder in violation of sections 664 and 187, subdivision (a); burglary in violation of section 664 and 459; and shooting at an inhabited dwelling in violation of section 246. The gang allegations attached to all counts pursuant to section 186.22 were also found true as were the allegations that a principal was armed with a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (c) as to the murder and attempted murder.

On November 19, 2010, the trial court sentenced Caseros to life without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction plus a consecutive 20-year term for the firearm allegation; a consecutive life term for the attempted murder plus a consecutive 20-year term for the firearm allegation; a stayed seven-year term for the burglary; and a 15-years-to-life consecutive term for the shooting at an inhabited dwelling.

In March 2019, Caseros filed a petition for resentencing as to the murder conviction pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel and considered briefing from the parties. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Caseros had failed to demonstrate a prima facie case warranting relief. We affirmed the trial court's order. (People v. Caseros (July 20, 2020, B302110) [nonpub. opn.].)

On March 9, 2022, Caseros filed a second petition for resentencing, this time as to the attempted murder conviction only. The trial court appointed counsel and considered briefing from the parties. On August 23, 2023, the trial court held a hearing on whether Caseros had made a prima facie case for relief. The court indicated it had considered the briefing, as well as this court's July 20, 2020 opinion, the jury instructions, the verdicts, and the Abstract of Judgment. The court acknowledged it was "not sitting as an independent fact finder at this time for this stage, which is the prima facie stage." The trial court denied the petition, finding that Caseros had not met his burden of establishing a prima facie case. Caseros timely appealed.

For context only, we recite the facts upon which the convictions are based. Caseros and four codefendant accomplices attempted to enter the apartment of a rival gang member by climbing through a second story window. Their plan was to "attack him." The intended victim shot and killed one of the accomplices as the accomplice tried to climb into the apartment. Caseros and the remaining three accomplices were found guilty of first degree murder of their fifth accomplice on the theory of provocative act murder. They were also found guilty of the attempted premeditated murder of the intended victim rival gang member. (People v. Caseros, supra, B302110 .)

On January 18, 2024, we appointed counsel to represent Caseros on appeal. On April 25, 2024, counsel filed a no-issue brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo. Counsel advised us they had told appellant he may file his own supplemental brief within 30 days. Counsel sent Caseros transcripts of the record on appeal as well as a copy of the brief.

On April 26, 2024, this court sent Caseros notice that a brief raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised him he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any issues he believes we should consider. We also advised him that if he did not file a supplemental brief, the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.

On May 20, 2024, Caseros filed a supplemental brief, in which he contends: 1) he was not the shooter and therefore cannot now be convicted of attempted murder; 2) he had no knowledge that his accomplice Mejia was going to shoot at the victim's apartment building and therefore had no malice and was not a major participant in the offense; 3) the trial testimony of Jennifer Santiago was completely false, as the prosecutor was fully aware, yet the prosecutor introduced it at trial as a truthful statement; 4) our July 20, 2020 opinion affirming the denial of Caseros's first resentencing petition did not quote the complete testimony given by Jennifer Santiago; and 5) the prosecution knowingly relied on false evidence to establish malice, without which the prosecution had no evidence that Caseros planned any attack on the victim or intentionally participated in the attack. Caseros also requested that we take judicial notice of our opinion of July 20, 2020. We grant the request for judicial notice.

DISCUSSION

Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis of liability for murder (and later, attempted murder). It also limited the scope of the felony murder rule. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957) (Lewis).) Petitions for resentencing carry out the intent of Senate Bill No. 1437, which was "to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life." (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f); Lewis, at p. 967.) Petitions under section 1172.6 address convictions where a defendant was not the actual killer but was held vicariously liable on one of several theories of liability identified in the statute.

Lewis also held that "petitioners who file a complying petition are to receive counsel upon the filing of a compliant petition." (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 963.) If the trial court does not appoint counsel upon request, petitioner must show a reasonable probability that in the absence of the error he would have obtained a more favorable result. (Id. at p. 974.) More specifically, a petitioner whose petition is denied before an order to show cause issues has the burden of showing it is reasonably probable that if he had been afforded the assistance of counsel his petition would not have been summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing. (Ibid.) If the record establishes ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law, the petition has been properly denied. (Id. at pp. 970-972.) However, the petition and record must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief. (People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1,14 [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."].) (Ibid.) When a trial court denies a section 1172.6 petition based on the failure to make a prima facie case for relief, our review is de novo. (Ibid.)

After appointment of counsel, the trial court assesses when a prima facie case for relief has been made. However, the prima facie inquiry is limited. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.) In assessing whether a defendant has made a prima facie case for relief pursuant to section 1172.6, ruling on a resentencing petition, the trial court is entitled to review the record of conviction, which includes the jury summations, jury instructions, verdict forms, and prior appellate opinions. (Lewis, at pp. 971-972.) However, Lewis cautioned that although appellate opinions are generally considered to be part of the record of conviction, the prima facie bar was intentionally set very low, the probative value of an appellate opinion is casespecific; a trial court should not engage in" 'factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.'" (Id. at p. 972.)

Here, Caseros challenges the testimony admitted at trial as either false or insufficient to support his conviction and alleges that the prosecutor committed misconduct in knowingly presenting false evidence. These contentions challenge misconduct which allegedly occurred at his trial. An appeal from a post-judgment petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is not a vehicle to raise unrelated claims of error allegedly committed by the trial court; it is not another opportunity to challenge the original judgment on other grounds. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [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. Allison (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 449, 461 [a petition for resentencing does not provide a do-over on factual disputes that have already been resolved], disapproved on another ground in People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 718, fn. 3.)

Thus, section 1172.6 does not afford a retrial on every element of a conviction for murder. Rather, Caseros must allege facts which, if true, would demonstrate that he could not presently be convicted of murder "because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019." (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).) Casero's contentions alleging errors at his jury trial do not satisfy this requirement and are properly rejected. Nor can he relitigate here the denial of the first petition he filed.

Caseros's remaining contention is that he could not now be convicted of attempted murder because he was not the actual shooter. He is mistaken. Whether he was the actual shooter is immaterial as he was prosecuted as an aider and abettor. The jury was properly instructed that to find Caseros guilty of attempted murder, it had to find, among other things, that Caseros harbored express malice and an intent to kill. In denying the petition, the trial quoted the requirements of the attempted murder instruction: "One, a direct but ineffectual act was done by one person towards the killing of another human being; and, two, the person committing the act harbored express malice aforethought, namely a specific intent to kill another human being."

The record confirms that the jury was instructed with CALJIC No. 8.66 (Attempted Murder) which sets out the requirements as recited by the trial court and CALJIC No. 8.67 (Willful, Deliberate and Premeditated Attempted Murder). The jury was also instructed with CALJIC No. 3.01 (Aiding and Abetting-Defined). There were no felony murder or natural and probable consequences instructions given as to the attempted murder count. Because the jury was instructed that it had to find express malice and an intent to kill in order to find Caseros guilty, the trial court was correct in find that Caseros is not entitled to relief. (People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 546 [direct aiding and abetting remains a valid theory of attempted murder after the enactment of Senate Bill No. 775].)

DISPOSITION

The order denying the petition for resentencing is affirmed.

We concur: GRIMES, J. VIRAMONTES, J.


Summaries of

People v. Caseros

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division
Jun 20, 2024
No. B333558 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2024)
Case details for

People v. Caseros

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWIN CASEROS, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division

Date published: Jun 20, 2024

Citations

No. B333558 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2024)