People v. Mateo CA2/4

Filed 4/20/21 P. v. Mateo CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 AP PELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B305965

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA414092) v.

MILTON MATEO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed. James Koester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri, and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Milton Mateo was convicted of attempted premeditated murder in July 2014. We affirmed his conviction in February 2016 (see People v. Mateo (Feb. 10, 2016, B258333) [nonpub. opn.]), and appellant sought review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted review (May 11, 2016, S232674), then remanded the case to this court with instructions to reconsider it in light of changes to the Penal Code enacted with Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437), which went into effect on January 1, 2019. In July 2019 we again affirmed appellant’s conviction, and held that his request for relief under Penal Code section 1170.951 must be presented to the superior court in the first instance. (See People v. Mateo (July 9, 2019, B258333) [nonpub. opn.] (Mateo II).) Appellant again sought review in the Supreme Court, which was denied. In March 2020, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 in the superior court. The court denied the petition without holding a hearing, finding that appellant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he had been convicted of attempted murder. Appellant now appeals that ruling. We affirm. Relief under a petition filed under section 1170.95 is limited to qualifying petitioners convicted of murder. Appellant was convicted of attempted murder, and is therefore ineligible for relief under that section.