People v. Segura CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 2025 No. B345006Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition, holding that the defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he was the actual killer and that he had no constitutional right to be personally present at the prima facie hearing.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly denied the section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage.
Whether the defendant was entitled to be personally present at the prima facie hearing.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the petition.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court’s denial of the petition at the prima face stage was proper because the record of conviction conclusively showed that appellant, as the actual killer, was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.”

“The prima facie determination is not akin to a sentencing hearing and is not a critical stage of the proceedings.”

“Accordingly, appellant had no constitutional right to be personally present at the prima facie hearing”

Filed 9/12/25 P. v. Segura CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B345006

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA026431) v.

LORENZO SEGURA,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Lorenzo Segura appeals from the order of the superior court denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95).2 Appellant’s appointed

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10).

counsel found no arguable issues and filed a brief consistent with People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Under the standard articulated in Delgadillo, we do not undertake an independent review of the record but instead evaluate the arguments that appellant raises in his letter brief. (Id. at pp. 231–232.) Finding none of his arguments meritorious, we affirm. BACKGROUND In 1995, appellant hunted down and fired at Miguel Aparicio, who was driving a car he borrowed from appellant and did not return in a timely manner.3 Later that night, appellant entered Aparicio’s apartment. Aparicio was not there, but three roommates were. Appellant shot all three, killing two of them. In 2004, appellant was convicted by a jury of one count each of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)), second degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (b)), attempted willful, deliberate and deliberate and premeditated murder (§§ 187, 664), shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246), and attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§ 192 subd. (a), 664). The jury found a multiple-murder special- circumstance allegation true (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), as well as allegations that appellant personally used a firearm during the commission of all offenses and personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the attempted murder (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced

People v. Segura CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, B345006

LORENZO SEGURA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. RICHARDSON, J.

AI Brief