Opinion
B333550
06-11-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH MICHAEL CASTRO, JR., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA189633
THE COURT:Defendant and appellant Joseph Michael Castro, Jr., appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. Defendant's appointed counsel found no arguable issues and filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Under the standard articulated in Delgadillo, we decline counsel's invitation to undertake an independent review of the record; instead, we evaluate the arguments that defendant raises in his supplemental brief. (Delgadillo, supra, at pp. 231-232.) Because his arguments lack merit, we affirm.
All further unattributed code citations are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
In 2000, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a), count 7) and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1), count 6). On the murder charge, the jury found that defendant was a principal, and that at least one principal intentionally and personally discharged a firearm and proximately caused great bodily harm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court sentenced defendant to life in prison, plus an additional 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. This court modified the sentence to strike the term for the firearm enhancement, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Bermudez (July 21, 2003, B148380) [nonpub. opn.].)
In September 2022, defendant submitted a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court subsequently appointed counsel for defendant. The prosecution filed a written opposition, along with a copy of the jury instructions from the 2000 trial. Defendant filed a reply.
On August 29, 2023, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether defendant had established a prima facie basis for relief. After reviewing the relevant jury instructions, the court determined that defendant "was prosecuted under a legal theory that required proof beyond a reasonable doubt of actual malice and not imputed malice[,]" and thus was "not eligible for relief under section 1172.6."
This appeal timely followed. Defendant's appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-232.)
On March 7, 2024, we sent a notice to defendant inviting him to "submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments that [defendant] wishes this court to consider," and advising that "[i]f no supplemental brief or letter is timely filed the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned." On April 4, 2024, defendant filed a supplemental brief.
DISCUSSION
Per Delgadillo, we limit our review to those arguments defendant raises in his supplemental brief. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 ["If the defendant . . . 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"].)
Defendant identifies several errors that allegedly occurred during the original trial. These arguments are improper. This appeal concerns the denial of defendant's section 1172.6 resentencing petition. The sole purpose of that petition is to allow persons convicted of murder or attempted murder to obtain retroactive relief if they could not now be convicted under recently amended murder statutes. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); see People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.) Section 1172.6 "does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error." (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947.) Because defendant's arguments are not pertinent to this appeal, we need not address them further.
Specifically, defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his original trial counsel "failed to do his job by not requesting a severance from" various codefendants. Defendant also alleges that the trial court should have "grant[ed] a mistrial when [a] witness . . . identified [defendant] . . . as being involved [in] crimes . . . that he was not charged with[,]" and suggests that the trial court erred by permitting "the gang experts [sic] testimony[.]"
Defendant's only contention relating to this appeal is the brief suggestion that his present appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise the arguments presented in defendant's supplemental brief. But because defendant's claims are improper, his counsel's failure to pursue them does not constitute ineffective assistance. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 925 ["'"[I]n order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must first show counsel's performance was 'deficient' because his 'representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness . . . under prevailing professional norms.' [Citation.]"'"].)
Additionally, we decline defendant's invitation to conduct an independent review. "The filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues." (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Since defendant has not raised any issues relevant to the denial of his section 1172.6 petition, we will not exercise our discretion to independently review the record of that denial.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.
LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. HOFFSTADT, J.