People v. Lopez CA4/1

Filed 9/10/21 P. v. Lopez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078266

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVI025720)

MARIBEL LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, John M. Tomberlin, Judge. Affirmed. Brett Harding Duxbury, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natatsha Cortina, Lynne G. McGinnis, and Christine L. Bergman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2010, a jury convicted Maribel Lopez and her co-defendant of first

degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The court sentenced Lopez to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison. Lopez appealed and this court affirmed the judgment as to both defendants in an unpublished opinion filed July 15, 2011. (People v. Peredia et al. (July 15, 2011, D057745) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, Lopez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and issued an order to show cause (OSC). Thereafter, the court held a contested evidentiary hearing. In that hearing, the parties agreed the court could consider the record of conviction, which includes this court’s prior opinion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the petition for resentencing. The court found the record proved Lopez was a major participant in the underlying felony and that she acted with reckless indifference to human life. Lopez appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to prove she acted with reckless indifference to human life. Lopez does not challenge the finding that she was a major participant in the underlying felony. We are satisfied the court correctly found the evidence proved Lopez acted with reckless indifference to human life, beyond a reasonable doubt. There is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision. We will affirm the trial court’s order denying the petition. STATEMENT OF FACTS The respondent’s brief contains a factual summary of the offense taken