People v. Siulua CA4/1

Filed 8/16/24 P. v. Siulua CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083325

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN233674)

PENI J. SIULUA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William Y. Wood, Judge. Affirmed. Peni Siulua, in pro. per.; and John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, a jury convicted Peni Siulua and a codefendant of one count of

first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and one count of attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)). The jury found true gang enhancements

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and also found a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). Siulua was sentenced to a total term of 75 years to life plus seven years in prison. Siulua appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Toluoa (Oct. 2, 2012, D058242).) In 2022, Siulua filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and eventually issued an order to show cause and conducted an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, the parties relied on the transcripts from the original trial. No additional evidence was introduced. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found Siulua was proven guilty of first degree murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The petition for resentencing was denied. Siulua filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2002) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. We notified Siulua of his opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Siulua has filed a supplemental brief which does not address any issues relating to the trial court’s decision following the evidentiary hearing. Siulua claims his appellate counsel is ineffective for filing a Delgadillo brief, which he did not authorize. Siulua wants the court to complete a “judicial investigation” and report the results to the California State Bar. He does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.