People v. Soto CA4/3

Filed 11/26/24 P. v. Soto CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063668

v. (Super. Ct. No. 07CF2465)

JESUS SOTO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed. Request for Judicial Notice. Granted. The Law Offices of Aaron J. Schechter and Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2009, a jury found Jesus Soto guilty of two counts of attempted murder and other crimes. He was sentenced to 39 years to life. In 2023, Soto filed a petition for resentencing of his attempted murder convictions under 1 Penal Code section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition, concluding Soto had not made a prima facie case for resentencing relief. Soto appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, stating no arguable issues could result in a disposition more favorable to Soto (id. at p. 232). Although Soto did not file a supplemental brief, we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record and appointed counsel’s brief. As discussed below, we find no reasonably arguable issue on appeal. We therefore affirm. I. RELEVANT FACTS On May 11, 2009, the Orange County District Attorney filed an amended information against Soto and Aaron Carrillo, charging them with the attempted murders of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 (counts 1 & 3), and various other crimes. The information also alleged various enhancements, including firearm use and discharge and gang enhancements. The jury was instructed that to convict a defendant for attempted murder, it must find the defendant committed a direct but ineffective act toward the killing of another person and the defendant intended to kill that person. The instruction did not mention the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury was instructed on the natural and probable