People v. Keo CA4/1

Filed 10/8/24 P. v. Keo CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083243

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD200761)

CHANTY KEO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Affirmed. Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2007, a jury convicted Chanty Keo of attempted premeditated

murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and found Keo personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The jury also convicted him of robbery (§ 211) and found other sentence

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

enhancements to be true. The court sentenced Keo to life in prison plus 27 years. Keo appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Keo (Aug. 25, 2008, D051784).) In 2023, Keo filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction and jury instructions, and held a hearing. The court found Keo was the sole participant in the crime and personally inflicted the injury to the victim. The court found the jury was not instructed on any theory of liability that was disapproved by section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court found Keo was ineligible for relief and denied the petition without first issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. Keo 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 issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. We notified Keo that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offenses were discussed in our original appeal in this case. We will not repeat them here. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error. Although Keo has not submitted any briefing to support his appeal, we have independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has not identified