People v. Machuca CA2/4

Filed 7/22/24 P. v. Machuca CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B331430

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA395354)

v.

ANTHONY MACHUCA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Curtis B. Rappe, Judge. Affirmed. Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Anthony Machuca appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and appellant filed a supplemental brief. We review the contentions appellant raises in his supplemental brief and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts presented at appellant’s trial are discussed in detail in this court’s prior nonpublished opinion, People v. Machuca (Feb. 25, 2015, B253171). We briefly discuss them here to provide context for the trial court’s ruling. We otherwise do not rely on this factual background in resolving the issues presented in this appeal. (See § 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).) In November 2012, the People charged appellant with the murder of Jose Carrasco (§ 187, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun, which caused great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)) and committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The prosecution presented evidence at trial that Carrasco was walking with two other men when appellant approached them from behind, said “Hey,” then shot Carrasco. After Carrasco fell, the shooter walked over and fired a second shot at close range. A witness across the street waiting for the bus testified to the incident and identified appellant as the shooter. In August 2013, the jury found appellant guilty of first degree murder and found true all enhancement allegations. The court sentenced appellant to a total of 50 years to life in prison. A different panel of this division affirmed appellant’s conviction. (People v. Machuca, supra, B253171). In October 2022, appellant filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel for appellant. The People opposed the petition, arguing that appellant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the jury was not instructed on the theories of natural and probable consequences, felony murder, aiding and abetting, or any theory