People v. Salamanca CA2/1

Filed 3/22/22 P. v. Salamanca CA2/1 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B300962

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA082067) v.

GUMARO SALAMANCA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Allen J. Webster, Jr., Judge. Reversed and remanded. Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________

A jury convicted Gumaro Salamanca of first degree murder, attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder, and shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and found true several firearm and gang allegations. The trial court sentenced him to 50 years to life in prison. We conditionally reversed the conviction. (People v. Salamanca (Jan. 13, 2016, B254814) [nonpub. opn.].) In that decision, we concluded that Salamanca’s “conviction for . . . murder may have been [improperly] based on the . . . theory of natural and probable consequences.” In 2019, Salamanca filed a petition for resentencing under 1 Penal Code section 1170.95. Relief under section 1170.95 was available to an inmate convicted of murder under the natural and probable consequences, aiding and abetting doctrine but not to “a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (See Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f); People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723.) The trial court found Salamanca was ineligible for relief because he was a “major participant” in the murder and directly “aided and abetted because he was the one who drove not one place, but three places where three different crimes occurred.” The court therefore denied Salamanca’s petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. Salamanca appealed that order, arguing that with respect to both his murder and attempted murder convictions, the court erred in denying his petition without issuing an order to show cause. We agreed as to his murder conviction but disagreed as to his conviction for attempted murder because the plain language