People v. Quijano CA2/2

Filed 2/27/26 P. v. Quijano CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B339719

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. LA048968)

MARIA QUIJANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Curtis B. Rappe, Judge. Affirmed. Ralph H. Goldsen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorneys General, Stacy Schwartz and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________________

In 2008, a jury convicted Maria Quijano (appellant) of conspiracy to commit murder and first degree murder and found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed for financial gain. In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6. The trial court summarily denied the petition because the record of conviction shows that appellant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. We agree and affirm. BACKGROUND In 2005, appellant paid a man to kill her husband, Reynaldo Quijano. That man hired several others to do the job, and one of them shot the husband to death in his car.2 A jury convicted appellant of conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)) and first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and found true firearm allegations (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and the special circumstance that the murder was committed for financial gain (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1)). Appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. We affirmed her conviction on direct appeal. (People v. Quijano, supra, B207955.) In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, and the trial court appointed counsel. The People filed an opposition to the petition, and appellant filed a reply. The trial court then set an order to show cause, before staying the case pending our high court’s decision in People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433. The court then recalled its decision to set an