People v. McDaniels CA1/1

Filed 10/23/24 P. v. McDaniels CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169509 v. ALPACINO MCDANIELS, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 175145) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2016, a jury convicted defendant Alpacino McDaniels of first degree murder and found true various firearm enhancements, including that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d) (section 12022.53(d)).1 He was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. McDaniels appealed, and we affirmed, except we remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancements under Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682) (Senate Bill No. 620). (People v. McDaniels (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 420, 423–424.) On remand, the court stayed the section 12022.53(d) enhancement and imposed a previously stayed enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

under section 12022.53, subdivision (c). Thus, the total sentence was reduced to 45 years to life. In 2022, McDaniels filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95, now 1172.6, based on changes to the law of murder made by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015). Under the current statute, “[a] person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime . . . may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder . . . conviction vacated and be resentenced on any remaining counts.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) The trial court denied McDaniels’s resentencing petition for failure to make a prima facie case for relief, concluding that the lack of jury instructions on any theory of imputed malice established that he was convicted on a still-valid theory of murder. McDaniels now appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, which established the procedural framework for appellate courts to follow when counsel finds no arguable issues in a section 1172.6 appeal. Under that framework, McDaniels received notice that he had a right to file a supplemental brief or his appeal could be dismissed. (See Delgadillo, at pp. 231–232.) McDaniels filed a letter brief raising several claims of alleged trial error, most of which we have previously rejected. None of these claims provide a basis for overturning the denial of his resentencing petition. Nor do we perceive any other arguable issues, as any error would necessarily be harmless since McDaniels is ineligible for relief as a matter of law under section 1172.6. Thus, we affirm.