People v. Trujillo CA5

Filed 1/23/25 P. v. Trujillo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087464 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF120858B) v.

JOSE ANDRES PINEDA TRUJILLO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David E. Wolf, Judge. Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

Appellant Jose Andres Pineda Trujillo appeals following his sentencing on a second degree murder conviction imposed on remand pursuant to disposition instructions from this court after appellant prevailed on a prior writ of habeas corpus. Appellant contends the trial court failed to fully follow this court’s instructions on remand because it resentenced appellant without conducting an evidentiary hearing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 and thereby failed to sentence appellant under existing ameliorative changes in the law. We find no error and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant’s case returns to this court after a unique procedural trail. In a prior opinion, this court resolved both a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an appeal following the denial of a resentencing petition under section 1172.6. Appellant’s writ petition successfully demonstrated his then-existing convictions for first degree murder and attempted murder could not be sustained under two postconviction changes in the law as embodied in People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 and People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591. These errors resulted in this court vacating appellant’s convictions but providing the People an opportunity to elect whether to retry appellant under a currently valid theory of liability and a prior binding determination in appellant’s trial that he was not the actual killer and did not act with an intent to kill in the underlying crimes. If the People chose not to retry appellant, and in line with appellant’s arguments and the relevant case law in the appeal, this court ordered that his conviction be modified to second degree murder and he be resentenced accordingly. In the appeal related to appellant’s request for resentencing on his first degree murder and attempted murder convictions pursuant to section 1172.6, this court dismissed the appeal as moot. We noted that appellant no longer stood convicted of the crimes for which he requested resentencing and, therefore, no relief could be granted. Importantly,