People v. Muriel CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 2025 No. G063818Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing and motion for appointment of counsel, finding that the statutory changes under Assembly Bill No. 333 are not retroactive to a judgment that became final in 2015.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly denied the defendant's petition for resentencing and motion for appointment of counsel.
Whether Penal Code section 1109, enacted via Assembly Bill No. 333, applies retroactively to a final judgment of conviction.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The application of Penal Code section 1109, however, is not retroactive.”

“Thus, since Muriel’s judgment became final in 2015, well before the enactment of Penal Code section 1109, it does not apply here.”

“After independently reviewing the entire appellate record, we find no arguable issue.”

Filed 9/10/25 P. v. Muriel CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063818

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06WF3139)

ROBERTO ISMAEL MURIEL, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed. Roberto Ismael Muriel in pro. per.; and Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Roberto Ismael Muriel filed a petition in the trial court seeking the appointment of counsel and “resentencing in light of Assembly Bill [No.] 333 [(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)].” The court denied Muriel’s request for appointed counsel and resentencing as Muriel had failed to establish grounds warranting his requests. Although not specifically requested, the court found Muriel did not have authority to petition for relief on his own under Penal Code section 1172.1.1 Muriel appealed. Appointed appellate counsel for Muriel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and requested this court conduct an independent review of the entire record. Acknowledging Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appellate counsel identified an issue to assist us in our review. Muriel filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Exercising our discretion under People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pages 230, 232, we examined the entire record as well as Muriel’s supplemental brief and find no reasonably arguable issue. We therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2013, a jury found Muriel guilty of attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)), aggravated assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246) and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found true allegations Muriel personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in the commission of the attempted murder and aggravated assault and personally discharged a firearm as a principal (§ 12022.53, subds. (c) & (e)(1)) in the commission of

People v. Muriel CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

ROBERTO ISMAEL MURIEL, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.

GOODING, J.

AI Brief