Opinion
B300735
04-24-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SALOMON HIDALGO, Defendant and Appellant.
Edward J. Haggerty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A469739 APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lee W. Tsao, Judge. Affirmed. Edward J. Haggerty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
In 1988, defendant Salomon Hidalgo pled guilty to murdering 70-year-old Ruth Hansen in the course of a burglary. He was sentenced to 25 years to life. In 2019, Hidalgo petitioned for resentencing under newly-enacted Penal Code section 1170.95. With the benefit of briefing and a hearing at which Hidalgo was represented by counsel, the trial court held that Hidalgo had not made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief and denied the petition. Hidalgo appeals. After appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), Hidalgo submitted a supplemental brief asserting defects in his original conviction. We have reviewed the entire record, Hidalgo's supplemental brief, and the exhibits attached thereto and have found no arguable appellate issues cognizable in this appeal. We therefore affirm.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
According to his confession, on March 6, 1986, Hidalgo and Alexander Lira rode their bicycles to Hansen's apartment. Hidalgo knew Hansen because he had done some work for her. He was 16 years old. Lira stayed with the bikes while Hidalgo went to the front door. When Hansen answered, she was holding a kitchen knife. Hidalgo asked Hansen to pay him some money she owed him, but she refused and told him to leave. In response, Hidalgo punched Hansen, knocking her to the floor. He entered the apartment and kicked her in the head. Then, he called Lira over. Lira and Hidalgo strangled Hansen with a towel for five minutes. Then, they stole some cash from the bedroom and left the house. The next morning, Hansen's daughter discovered her mother's body in the living room. The cause of death was ligature strangulation of the neck and eight stab wounds to the face.
Hidalgo spoke to the police four times and took a polygraph examination. He confessed during the fourth interrogation. None of the conversations were recorded. After both boys confessed, detectives took them to the crime scene to film a reenactment of the murder, but the boys declined to participate.
By information filed July 2, 1986, Hidalgo was charged with one count of murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), one count of burglary (§ 459; count 2), and one count of residential robbery (§ 213.5; count 3). The information also alleged that he had personally used a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)) in the commission of each offense.
Hidalgo had previously been found unfit for juvenile court.
In October 1988, defendant pled guilty to one count of first degree murder. He was subsequently sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life with a recommendation that he receive medical and psychiatric treatment. It appears he did not appeal.
In the interim, defendant had been found incompetent to stand trial and spent approximately nine months receiving treatment at Patton State Hospital. --------
On March 6, 2019, Hidalgo filed a petition for resentencing under newly-enacted section 1170.95. The prosecution filed an opposition, and court-appointed defense counsel filed a reply. After a hearing at which defense counsel submitted on the papers, the court issued a memorandum of decision.
The court noted that the prosecution's factual allegations were undisputed, and concluded the record of conviction and other available records established that Hidalgo was either the actual killer or was a major participant in the underlying burglary and acted with reckless indifference to human life within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (d). Accordingly, the court held Hidalgo had not made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief, and denied the petition.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. On January 3, 2020, appellate counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Later that day, we notified Hidalgo that his counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that he had 30 days to submit by brief or letter any arguments he wished this court to consider. We received a supplemental brief on January 17, 2020.
DISCUSSION
As noted, Hidalgo filed a supplemental brief in this case. In that brief, he appears to argue that he was incompetent to plead guilty, and his plea and confession were both coerced because he was 16 years old, mentally ill, and had been promised mental health treatment if he pled guilty. He attaches a variety of psychological records to support these arguments.
Hidalgo's claims challenge the validity of his original conviction. But this appeal only concerns whether Hidalgo is eligible for relief under section 1170.95, and our review is limited to that question. As the matters Hidalgo raises are beyond the scope of this appeal, they "must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus ... ." (People v. Salcido (2008) 44 Cal.4th 93, 172.)
We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's petition for resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
LAVIN, J. WE CONCUR:
EDMON, P. J.
DHANIDINA, J.