People v. Curiel CA5

Filed 10/1/25 P. v. Curiel CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F089370 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF170009A) v.

JUAN ALONSO CURIEL, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Nathan G. Leedy, Judge. Charles M. Bonneau, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Ian Whitney, Christina H. Simpson, Amanda D. Cary, and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

INTRODUCTION Petitioner Juan Alonso Curiel petitioned the trial court for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court summarily denied the petition on the ground the court previously denied a section 1172.6 petition brought by petitioner, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. (See People v. Curiel (July 9, 2024, F081143) [nonpub. opn.].) Petitioner contends the petition was improperly denied as to his attempted murder convictions, which were not addressed on the merits in the prior petition or appeal. He contends he is entitled to resentencing on these convictions. The People concede the court’s rationale was erroneous, inasmuch as petitioner’s attempted murder convictions were not addressed previously, but nonetheless argue the petition was properly denied because petitioner is ineligible for resentencing on his attempted murder convictions as a matter of law. We reverse based on the People’s concession that the trial court’s stated basis for the denial was erroneous. We decline to consider petitioner’s eligibility for resentencing on his attempted murder convictions in the first instance and instead remand to the trial court for further proceedings. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 “A jury found [petitioner] guilty of one count each of first-degree murder (. . . § 187, subd. (a)) and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246) and five counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664). The jury found true as to each count a criminal-street-gang allegation (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), a personal-and-intentional discharge-of-a-firearm-by-a-principal allegation (§ 12022.53, subds. (c), (e)(1)), and a personal-and-intentional discharge-of-a-firearm-by-a-principal-