People v. Balion CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Dec 13, 2024 No. G063195Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding that the record conclusively refuted the defendant's claim that he was convicted under a theory of imputed malice.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage.
Whether the defendant's conviction was based on a theory of natural and probable consequences or imputed malice.
Whether a section 1172.6 petition allows for the challenge of trial errors unrelated to the statute's scope.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record here conclusively refutes Balion’s contention that he was tried under a natural and probable consequences theory.”

“The jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine as to the murder charge, so Balion is not eligible for relief.”

“A petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is not an opportunity to challenge the original conviction on grounds other than section 1172.6.”

Filed 12/13/24 P. v. Balion 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063195

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08CF2995)

JORGE ENRIQUE ESTRADA OPINION BALION,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed. Jorge Enrique Estrada Balion, in pro. per.; Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Jorge Enrique Estrada Balion1 filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.62 on his first degree murder conviction. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage. We appointed counsel to represent Balion on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, appointed counsel filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case and, without arguing against his client, stated he was unable to identify any arguable issues on appeal and asked us to conduct an independent review of the entire record. Balion was given notice and an opportunity to file a supplemental brief, and he did so.

Under People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pages 231 to 232, the Court of Appeal may conduct an independent review of the record in the exercise of its discretion, and we elect to do so. After fully examining counsel’s brief and the entire record and considering the issues suggested by Balion, we find no reasonably arguable issue on appeal and affirm. DISCUSSION Balion seeks to be resentenced under section 1172.6, which allows “[a] person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is

People v. Balion CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

JORGE ENRIQUE ESTRADA OPINION BALION,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GOODING, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

SANCHEZ, J.

AI Brief