People v. Aceves CA4/3

Filed 7/18/24 P. v. Aceves CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063214

v. (Super. Ct. No. C-94165)

SALVADOR ACEVES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Salvador Aceves appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 After his attorney filed a no-issue brief under the procedures described in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, appellant filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, having considered appellant’s claims, and having independently reviewed the record, we conclude appellant is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1992, appellant participated in a gang-related drive-by shooting that resulted in two people being shot and injured. Appellant was not the shooter, but following a jury trial he was convicted of, inter alia, conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of attempted premeditated murder, and knowingly permitting another person to discharge a firearm from his vehicle. (§§ 182, 664/187, subd. (a), 12034, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him to prison for 25 years to life, and we affirmed the judgment on appeal. (See People v. Paredes et al. (Dec. 30, 1994, G014337) [nonpub. opn.]; People v. Aceves (May 26, 1999, G019759) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2023, appellant petitioned the trial court to vacate his attempted murder convictions and to be resentenced pursuant to the terms of section 1172.6. Following a response by the People and a hearing at which appellant was represented by appointed counsel, the court determined appellant was ineligible for relief because the jury found he acted with the intent to kill, and it was not instructed on any theory of imputed malice. It thus denied his petition for failing to make a prima facie case for relief.