People v. Valadez CA4/3

Filed 6/16/21 P. v. Valadez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059333

v. (Super. Ct. No. C-78146)

LOUIS PALAMINO VALADEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, James Edward Rogan, Judge. Affirmed. Diane T. Letarte for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and, Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Louis Palamino Valadez appeals from the trial court’s denial of 1 his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (Petition). He contends the trial court erred in denying the Petition without first issuing an order to show cause and hearing testimony. We disagree. His conviction for conspiracy to commit murder together with the jury’s true finding on the multiple murder special circumstance mean the record of conviction shows defendant is not eligible for relief under section 1170.95 as a matter of law. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. FACTS Defendant was convicted by a jury in 1990 of conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of first degree murder with a multiple murder special circumstance, and eleven counts of attempted murder. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. We set out the facts of the crimes and affirmed the 2 convictions in People v. Figueroa (Jun. 30, 1992, G010268, G010371 [nonpub. opn.]). In July 2019, defendant filed the Petition. After receiving briefing from the prosecution and defendant’s counsel, the trial court denied the Petition, finding defendant had failed to make a prima facie case for relief. In denying the Petition, the trial court concluded defendant was not eligible for resentencing because the record of conviction demonstrated he was not convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequence theory. The court specifically relied on the jury’s conviction of the defendant for conspiracy to commit murder, the jury’s true finding on the multiple murder special circumstance, and the corresponding jury instructions, which each required a finding of intent to kill. Defendant timely appealed.