People v. Coronado CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 2021 No. B308296Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel for a petitioner seeking resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, but the error was harmless because the record of conviction conclusively demonstrates the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Issues

Did the trial court err by failing to appoint counsel for a section 1170.95 petitioner?
Is the petitioner ineligible for relief under section 1170.95 as a matter of law based on the record of conviction?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree that the trial court erred but conclude that any error was harmless.”

“The jury, following the given instructions, must have found that Coronado was aware of the killer’s intent to commit murder at the time he aided and abetted the act, and thus was liable for that offense.”

“Coronado is ineligible for relief under section 1170.95 as a matter of law.”

Filed 11/18/21 P. v. Coronado CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B308296

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA283071) v.

JESUS ENRIQUE CORONADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Jesus Enrique Coronado petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95. The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel for Coronado. He appeals and contends that the trial court engaged in erroneous factfinding and failed to appoint him counsel. We agree that the trial court erred but conclude that any error was harmless. BACKGROUND In November of 2004, Luis Valencia was standing in the street near his home when an SUV drove slowly by. A passenger fired seven gunshots at Valencia, killing him. Coronado confessed to a fellow gang member that he and another gang member committed the shooting. In a police interview, Coronado told detectives that on the night of the murder, he was driving an SUV with four passengers. One of the passengers exited the vehicle and fired seven gunshots at someone. Coronado was charged with one count of murder. (§ 187, subd. (a).) The case went to trial. The court instructed the jury with CALJIC Nos. 3.00 (principals), 3.01 (aiding and abetting), 3.31 (concurrence of act and specific intent), 8.10 (murder), 8.11 (malice aforethought), 8.20 (deliberate and premeditated murder), 8.25.1 (drive-by murder), 8.30 (unpremeditated murder of the second degree), and 8.31 (second degree murder—killing resulting from unlawful act dangerous to life). The jury convicted Coronado of second degree murder. (§ 187, subd. (a).) The jury found a principal personally used, intentionally discharged, and caused death with a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)–(e)(1)), and the offense was committed for

People v. Coronado CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B308296

JESUS ENRIQUE CORONADO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.

AI Brief