Opinion
E081881
11-22-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DANIEL TRUJILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FVI1500732. Miriam I. Morton, Judge. Dismissed.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MCKINSTER J.
On June 29, 2016, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Daniel Trujillo of two counts of attempted deliberate premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, counts 1 &2). The court sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment of 14 years to life. (Trujillo, supra, E066780.)
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code. We take judicial notice of our prior opinion from defendant's appeal from the original judgment. (People v. Trujillo. (Feb. 26, 2018, E066780) [nonpub. opn.].) In their motion to deny defendant's petition, the People requested the court below take judicial notice of Trujillo.
On January 10, 2022, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95. At a prima facie hearing on August 4, 2023, the trial court denied the petition based on the jury instructions, which the People had attached to their motion to deny the petition.
Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case, requesting that we must independently review the record for error, and identifying four potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court erred in determining that defendant was not convicted under a theory of imputed malice; (2) whether the trial court's instruction of the jury regarding conspiracy indicated that defendant was convicted based on a theory of natural and probable consequences; (3) whether defendant was eligible for resentencing where the court instructed the jury with theories of direct aiding and abetting, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to commit attempted murder; and 4) whether counsel below rendered prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel.
We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: RAMIREZ, P. J., CODRINGTON J.