People v. Maldonado CA2/6

California Court of Appeal May 30, 2025 No. B330214Unpublished

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 because his appellate claims were unrelated to the petition's denial and were barred by the law of the case doctrine.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's third petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.
Whether the defendant's claims of trial error are cognizable in an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition.
Whether the defendant's claims are barred by the law of the case doctrine.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because his claims on appeal are unrelated to the denial of his section 1172.6 petition and were rejected in his previous direct appeal, we affirm.”

“A resentencing petition is not an opportunity to raise errors made at trial or challenge the original conviction, other than on the grounds allowed by section 1172.6.”

“Our previous resolution of Maldonado’s contentions in Gonzales is law of the case.”

Filed 5/30/25 P. v. Maldonado CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B330214 (Super. Ct. No. 1434089) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

RAMON DAVID MALDONADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ramon David Maldonado appeals the order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Because his claims on appeal are unrelated to the denial of his section 1172.6 petition and were rejected in his previous direct appeal, we affirm.

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2015, after a joint trial with his four codefendants, Maldonado was convicted of first degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)) with special circumstances of kidnapping and torture found true (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(B), (a)(18)). The trial court also found true that Maldonado served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced him to life in state prison without the possibility of parole plus three years. Maldonado appealed the judgment. We affirmed. (People v. Gonzales (Aug. 7, 2018, B264384) [nonpub. opn.] 2018 WL 3737940 (Gonzales).) In 2020, Maldonado petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95.2 The trial court denied this petition at the prima facie stage without appointed counsel. Maldonado appealed, and we affirmed. (People v. Maldonado (June 21, 2021, B306808) [nonpub. opn.] (Maldonado I).) The Supreme Court granted review and remanded the matter to our court to vacate the decision and reconsider following People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952. Following transfer from the Supreme Court, we again affirmed the order denying the section 1172.6 petition. (People v. Maldonado (Sept. 23, 2021, B306808) [nonpub. opn.] (Maldonado II).) We held that failure to appoint counsel at the prima facie stage of the petition was harmless under Lewis because Maldonado was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. The “jury found true a torture special circumstance allegation . . . . That finding . . . required the jury to determine that

People v. Maldonado CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

RAMON DAVID MALDONADO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BALTODANO, J.

GILBERT, P. J.

CODY, J.

AI Brief