Opinion
D083605
10-23-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAUL B. VARGAS, Defendant and Appellant.
Raul B. Vargas, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 San Diego County, No. SCS286199 Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
Raul B. Vargas, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
In 2017, a jury convicted Raul B. Vargas of second-degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), and found Vargas used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court sentenced Vargas to an indeterminate term of 45 years to life in prison, plus a one-year determinate term. Vargas appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Vargas (Nov. 28, 2018, D073025).)
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In March 2023, Vargas filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing
The trial court noted there were no jury instructions on natural and probable consequences or felony murder. The court concluded that under the instructions the jury would have to find Vargas was the actual killer. The court determined Vargas had not established a prima facie case for relief under the statute and therefore dismissed the petition.
Vargas filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issue for reversal on appeal.
We offered Vargas the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief. In his brief, Vargas complains about the trial counsel. He argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the original trial. Vargas also argues various witnesses lied at trial. Vargas does not address any argument to the validity of the order denying his petition for resentencing. The supplemental brief does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief that does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. To comply with the mandates of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel does identify one possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in failing to find Vargas had established a prima facie case for relief.
We have independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has not disclosed any potentially meritorious issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Vargas on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Vargas's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: IRION, J., BUCHANAN, J.