People v. Soto CA1/1

Filed 10/31/24 P. v. Soto CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A170630 v. ISIDRO PENA SOTO, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR241319) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2007, a jury convicted defendant Isidro Pena Soto of several crimes, including second degree murder, after he drove while under the influence of alcohol and caused a fatal crash. He was sentenced to 19 years to life in prison, and this division affirmed the judgment after modifying it to strike certain lesser included offenses. (People v. Soto (Sept. 29, 2009, A123133) [nonpub. opn.] (Soto I).) Several years later, Soto filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6, based on changes to the law of murder made by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437). This legislation amended sections 188 and 189 to limit vicarious liability for murder and created a procedure for those convicted under the

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

previous law to seek resentencing. (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707–708.) In 2022, we affirmed the trial court’s denial of Soto’s resentencing petition on the basis that he was ineligible for relief because he was convicted of second degree murder based on People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290 (Watson). (People v. Soto (Jun. 16, 2022, A163944) [nonpub. opn.] (Soto II).) Under Watson, a defendant who drives while intoxicated and kills someone may be convicted of second degree implied malice murder. (Watson, at pp. 300–301.) We held that Soto was ineligible for resentencing under former section 1170.95 as a matter of law because Senate Bill No. 1437 did not affect the concept of implied malice. Soto now appeals from a trial court order denying his subsequent petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. His appointed appellate counsel filed a no-issues brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and we gave Soto notice that he had a right to file a supplemental brief or his appeal could be dismissed. (See id. at pp. 231–232.) Soto filed a supplemental brief in which he makes several claims of trial error. He also claims the trial court abused its discretion by denying his resentencing petition and his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by filing a Delgadillo brief. We are unable to consider his claims of trial error in this proceeding. And as we already held in Soto II, he is categorically ineligible for relief under section 1172.6, defeating his remaining claims. Therefore, we affirm.