People v. Sedillo CA2/1

Filed 9/29/21 P. v. Sedillo CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B309401

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA085739) v.

LISA SEDILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James D. Otto, Judge. Appeal dismissed. David Andreasen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

Lisa Sedillo filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95. After the court denied the petition, Sedillo appealed. We appointed counsel for her, who filed a brief that asserted no arguable issues and requested that we review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Sedillo did not submit a supplemental brief or otherwise inform us of any issues to be considered. As we explain below, we dismiss the appeal.

I. In 1992, Francisco Moreno shot and killed Jason Bandel outside the home of David and Ricardo Huizar. Sedillo drove the getaway car for Moreno. In 2010, Sedillo made statements during telephone conversations that implicated herself in the murder. The conversations were recorded pursuant to a judicially authorized wiretap. In 2011, she was charged with Bandel’s murder, among other crimes, and convicted by a jury in 2013. We affirmed Sedillo’s murder conviction in April 2015 in a published opinion. (People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1070.) In rejecting her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the murder conviction, we stated: “[T]here was substantial evidence from which a rational jury could conclude [Sedillo] intended to aid and abet Moreno’s murder of Bandel . . . . Moreno used a rifle wrapped in a towel or sheet, which would have been very conspicuous when carried in the [car Sedillo was driving]; the car drove by with both Moreno and [Sedillo] before the shooting, implying they were surveilling the Huizar home; [Sedillo] sat in the car while the shooting took place and when Moreno came back to the car, sped away, implying she knew what he had done; and the