Opinion
G063228
10-29-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAM LEE TEUTIMEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 95WF0438 Larry Yellin, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.
Defendant William Lee Teutimez filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6. At the prima facie hearing on the petition, the trial court summarily denied Teutimez resentencing relief. Appointed counsel for Teutimez filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and requested this court conduct an independent review of the entire record. Teutimez was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief but he did not do so.
All further undesignated statutory references are to this code.
Teutimez's petition references former section 1170.95. Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will treat the petition as a request pursuant to section 1172.6.
Exercising our discretion under Delgadillo, we examined the entire record and found no reasonably arguable issue. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) We therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1996, Teutimez pled guilty to first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), 10 counts of premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; counts 2-11), and one count of conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, 187, subd. (a); count 12). Additionally, Teutimez admitted, as to counts 1 through 5, he was vicariously armed with a firearm and knew that another principal was personally armed. (§ 12022, subds. (a)(1), (d).) He also admitted, as to counts 6 through 11, he personally used a firearm. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).)
Teutimez provided the following factual basis for his guilty plea: "On 11-5-94, in Orange County, I agreed with Brandon Flatt, Omar Fierro, Anthony Vergara and other members of '2FS', to commit premeditated and deliberate murder with the specific intent to carry out premeditated and deliberate murder. I also aided and abetted the premeditated and deliberate murder of Cesar Torres, a human being, and four (4) premeditated and deliberate attempts to kill a human being. I was vicariously armed with a firearm in the above mentioned crimes, knowing that Omar Fierro was personally armed with a firearm. I also on six (6) occasions, attempted to kill a human being. During these six (6) crimes, I personally used a firearm." The court sentenced Teutimez to a total prison term of 28 years to life.
In 2023, Teutimez filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel to represent him. The prosecution filed a response, arguing the petition should be denied at the prima facie hearing because the record of conviction indisputably showed Teutimez would still be found guilty of murder and attempted murder under current law and thus was not entitled to relief.
On September 29, 2023, the trial court conducted a prima facie hearing on the petition. After reviewing the petition for resentencing, the People's response, and counsel's argument at the prima facie hearing, the trial court issued a statement of decision, in which it found Teutimez was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law with respect to all 12 counts, and denied his petition for resentencing. The trial court concluded Teutimez was not eligible for relief because (1) His concurrent conviction of first-degree murder and conspiracy in counts 1 and 12 involved the same victim and thus demonstrated Teutimez's specific intent to carry out the murder; (2) The record of conviction established the requisite intent to kill for counts 2 through 11 thus precluding relief under section 1172.6; and (3) His conspiracy conviction in count 12 is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief.
Despite the trial court's finding as to count 12, Teutimez did not seek relief under section 1172.6 for his conspiracy conviction. A conviction for conspiracy to commit murder is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief. (People v. Whitson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 22, 36.)
Teutimez filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
I.
Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015; Senate Bill 1437) amended the felony murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder "'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.'" (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959 (Lewis).) Senate Bill 1437 also created procedures "for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief." (Lewis, at p. 957.) The Legislature subsequently extended relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Sen. Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) §1; Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.)
The process begins when a defendant previously convicted of a qualifying offense files a petition pursuant to section 1172.6. Once a superior court receives the petition, it shall appoint counsel if requested by the petitioner. (§ 1172.6, subd. (b)(1)-(3).) The prosecutor must then file a response to the petition, and a reply may be filed by the petitioner. (Id., subd. (c).) The trial court shall then "hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief." (Ibid.)
At the prima facie hearing, the trial court may rely on the record of conviction. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 970-971.) "It is only where the record of conviction establishes the petition lacks merit as a matter of law that the court may deny the petition without a hearing." (People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566, 576.) If the trial court denies the petition without issuing an order to show cause, it must state its reasons. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) We independently review a summary denial of section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. (People v. Gaillard (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1206, 1211.)
II.
WE FIND NO ARGUABLE ISSUE
In the Delgadillo brief, Teutimez's appellate counsel suggests we consider whether: (1) Teutimez's remote appearance by audio at the prima facie hearing satisfied personal presence requirements; (2) Teutimez was convicted under the kill zone theory, thus invalidating his murder conviction; and (3) The record supports a finding of Teutimez's intent to kill with respect to his convictions where Teutimez's group "fired shots randomly in the direction of the other group." For the reasons we explain, we conclude none of the potential issues identified by counsel constitutes a reasonably arguable issue regarding Teutimez's eligibility for section 1172.6 relief.
First, there is no arguable issue regarding Teutimez's remote appearance during the prima facie hearing. It appears from the record, an "[o]rder for video appearance" had been previously signed by the trial court. At the outset of the hearing, Teutimez was present via audio only and all parties agreed to proceed due to video limitations within the prison where Teutimez was housed. Teutimez thereafter participated at the hearing via an audio connection.
Second, there is no arguable issue regarding the applicability of the kill zone theory to Teutimez's case. The kill zone theory applies when "'the defendant has a primary target and reasons he cannot miss that intended target if he kills everyone in the area in which the target is located.'" (People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591, 607.) Nothing in the record of conviction indicates Teutimez had a primary target.
Lastly, there is no arguable issue regarding whether the record of conviction established as a matter of law Teutimez committed the charged offenses with an intent to kill. Teutimez pleaded guilty to, inter alia, conspiring to commit murder. (See People v. Medrano (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 177, 183 ["'[A]ll conspiracy to commit murder is necessarily conspiracy to commit premeditated and deliberated first degree murder'"].) In support of that offense, the first amended information alleged on November 5, 1994, Teutimez and members of his criminal street gang agreed to drive to the location of a rival gang's party where Teutimez said the group should "'Go blasting.'" The first amended information further alleged the group travelled in two cars to the party location, and once there, Teutimez in one car, and Teutimez's fellow gang member and coconspirator, Omar Fierro, in the other car, each fired several shots at individuals standing in front of a location.
As quoted ante, in his factual basis for pleading guilty to murder, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder, Teutimez admitted that on November 5, 1994, he: (1) conspired with fellow gang members to commit premeditated and deliberate murder with the specific intent to carry out premeditated and deliberate murder; (2) made six attempts to kill a human being while personally armed with a firearm; and (3) aided and abetted the premeditated and deliberate murder of Cesar Torres, as well as four premeditated and deliberate attempts to kill a human being, while vicariously armed and with knowledge Fierro was personally armed. There is no arguable issue Teutimez was eligible for relief under section 1172.6.
After independently reviewing the entire appellate record, we find no arguable issue and therefore affirm the trial court's order denying Teutimez postjudgment relief.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order denying the resentencing petition is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: DELANEY, J. GOODING, J.