People v. Casio CA2/5

Filed 8/27/24 P. v. Casio CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B330780

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA076492) v.

VINCENT ROBERT CASIO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jared D. Moses, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Vincent Robert Casio, in pro. per.; and Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

Defendant Vincent Robert Casio (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former 1170.95).1 Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel found no arguable issues and filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant filed his own supplemental brief arguing that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel upon defendant’s filing of a facially sufficient resentencing petition under section 1172.6, and that the court engaged in improper factfinding and weighing of the evidence at the prima facie stage. On June 14, 2024, we issued an order observing that the “jury appears to have been instructed on the doctrine of natural and probable consequences,” and directing the parties to brief “whether the portions of the prior record the court may consider at the prima facie [stage] establish, as a matter of law, that [defendant] acted with actual malice in the commission of the crimes of attempted murder, such that the denial of his petition without the appointment of counsel constituted harmless error.” In response to this court’s order, counsel for defendant filed a letter brief arguing that the trial court’s failure to appoint counsel constituted harmful error because the record of conviction leaves open the possibility that defendant was convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.2 The People filed no brief in response to