People v. Medina CA1/1

Filed 8/25/25 P. v. Medina CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172132 v. NATHAN MEDINA, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05000806562) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2009, a jury convicted defendant Nathan Medina of one count of first degree murder, two counts of attempted premeditated murder, and one count of burglary, and he was sentenced to 40 years plus 50 years to life in prison. This division affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Medina (Feb. 24, 2012, A125850) (Medina).) In August 2024, Medina filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6, based on changes to the law of murder made by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437). This legislation amended sections 188 and 189 to limit vicarious liability for murder. (People v. Hin (2025) 17 Cal.5th 401, 441.) It also created a procedure under former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6, for those convicted under the

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

previous law to seek resentencing. (People v. Antonelli (2025) 17 Cal.5th 719, 724.) Medina now appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221–222 (Delgadillo) stating that there are no arguable issues. Under Delgadillo, we gave Medina notice that he had a right to file a supplemental brief or his appeal could be dismissed. (See id. at pp. 231–232.) Medina filed a supplemental brief in which he makes several claims of trial error, but we are unable to consider such claims in this appeal. He also cites ameliorative legislation unrelated to section 1172.6, which likewise does not bear on whether the trial court erred by denying his resentencing petition. Finally, he argues that the court was biased and improperly engaged in factfinding to deny the petition, but he fails to demonstrate any bias or error. Thus, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The underlying facts are set forth in our opinion from Medina’s direct appeal. Briefly, Medina’s mother and stepfather were longtime friends of Beverly Rhoads. Rhoads hired the stepfather to do a construction project at her home, and Medina also worked on the project. After significant delays in the work’s performance, Rhoads sued the stepfather. (Medina, supra, A125850.) Several months later, on March 20, 2008, 42-year-old Medina entered Rhoads’s home while she and her adult son, Joshua, were present. Medina shot Rhoads and Joshua, and shot at but missed Sean Mendell, a friend who was living in Rhoads’s guest cottage. Joshua did not survive. (Medina, supra, A125850.)