People v. Sisco CA3

Filed 12/23/24 P. v. Sisco CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099815

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F08461)

v.

ERIC SISCO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Eric Sisco appeals from a postconviction order denying his resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and is asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record. Sisco filed a supplemental brief

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

challenging the denial of his section 1172.6 petition and raising numerous other claims. We reject these contentions and affirm. BACKGROUND In 2010, a jury found Sisco guilty of two counts of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true numerous firearm and great bodily injury allegations as to the attempted murders and assaults. The trial court found that Sisco had a prior strike conviction. The court sentenced Sisco to an aggregate term of 30 years four months plus 25 years to life. We affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Sisco (Oct. 19, 2011, C065373) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, Sisco filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6), alleging that he could no longer be convicted of attempted murder due to legislative changes to murder liability. The trial court denied the petition because the jury had not been instructed on a now invalid theory of murder and, as such, Sisco was ineligible for relief. On appeal, we affirmed the order denying Sisco’s petition. (People v. Sisco (Dec. 14, 2022, C096668) [nonpub. opn.].)2 In 2023, Sisco again petitioned for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition because it was successive and, on the merits, for the same reasons the prior petition had been denied. Sisco timely appealed.