People v. Guillen CA4/3

Filed 10/1/20 P. v. Guillen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058957

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09CF0684)

MIGUEL LOPEZ GUILLEN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In September 2010, after a jury found appellant Miguel Lopez Guillen guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a); all further statutory references are to the Penal Code) and premeditated attempted murder, the trial court sentenced him to 32 years to life in state prison. In an unpublished opinion, this court affirmed the convictions. (People v. Guillen (Sept. 27, 2012, G045989) [nonpub. opn.].) In February 2020, Guillen filed a petition to vacate his murder conviction under section 1170.95, alleging he was convicted “pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” The trial court determined the petition did not set forth a prima facie case for relief because “[a] review of court records” showed Guillen was not convicted “based on felony-murder or on a natural and probable consequences theory of vicarious liability for aiders and abettors.” Guillen appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Guillen did not file a supplemental brief. Because our review of the record discloses no arguable issues, we affirm the postjudgment order denying Guillen’s section 1170.95 petition.