People v. Gonzales CA6

Filed 3/12/25 P. v. Gonzales CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H052098 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 86443)

v.

GONZALO ROBERT GONZALES,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* Gonzalo Gonzales appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Gonzales subsequently filed a supplemental brief. Concluding that Gonzales raises no arguable issues, we affirm the trial court’s order. I. BACKGROUND

In 1983, a jury convicted Gonzales of second degree murder and found true the allegation that he used a firearm in committing that offense. The trial court sentenced Gonzales to an indeterminate term of 17 years to life in prison, and the judgment was affirmed in People v. Gonzales (Dec. 19, 1985, A024720) [nonpub. opn.].

* Before Grover, Acting P. J., Danner, J., and Lie, J. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In 2023, Gonzales filed a petition for resentencing,2 asserting that he was convicted of murder under the felony murder and natural and probable consequences doctrines and is entitled to relief under section 1172.6. Gonzales’s petition also alleged multiple “trial errors,” including insufficiency of evidence, erroneous admission of evidence, instructional error, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In an opposition, the district attorney argued that Gonzales was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because he was tried as the sole perpetrator and convicted under a theory of second degree murder which required the jury to find malice beyond a reasonable doubt. The district attorney attached to its opposition jury instructions and verdict forms from Gonzales’s trial, as well as excerpts of trial testimony and respective counsel’s closing arguments. In reply, Gonzales filed a motion on his own behalf, representing that appointed counsel had declined to file papers in support of his resentencing and requesting more time to respond to the district attorney’s arguments. At a hearing on the prima facie sufficiency of Gonzales’s petition, the trial court denied the resentencing petition, finding no “factual or legal basis upon which to grant” it. Gonzales timely appealed.3 On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues but complied with Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pages 231–232. We notified Gonzales that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. (Id. at p. 232.) Although Gonzales filed a supplemental