People v. Luciozamudio CA4/3

Filed 8/27/20 P. v. Luciozamudio 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058851

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11NF3721)

EDGAR SALVADOR LUCIOZAMUDIO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. Edward J. Haggerty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Edgar Salvador Luciozamudio, appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for resentencing (Petition) under Penal Code section 1170.95 (section 1170.95), enacted as part of Senate Bill 1437 (SB 1437). In 2014, a jury convicted defendant of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison. In 2019, defendant filed the Petition seeking resentencing. The trial court denied the Petition stating: “The petition does not set forth a prima face case for relief under the statute. A review of court records indicates defendant is not eligible for relief under the statute because the defendant does not stand convicted of murder or defendant’s murder conviction(s) is not based on felony-murder or on a natural and probable consequences theory of vicarious liability for aiders and abettors. ‘The court shall review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie case showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of this section.’ (Pen. Code, Section 1170.95(c).)” We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court he found no arguable issues to assert on defendant’s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel and this court notified defendant he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, we received no supplemental brief from him and the time to file one has passed. To assist us in our independent review, counsel suggested we consider the following issues: 1. Did the trial court err by failing to appoint counsel for defendant to litigate his eligibility for relief under SB 1437? 2. Did the trial court deny defendant his statutory right to present additional legal argument and evidence by summarily denying the Petition based on its review of the court file?