People v. Valadez CA4/3

Filed 6/21/22 P. v. Valadez CA4/3 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

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 and Arthur B. Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * This case returns to us after the Supreme Court granted defendant Louis Palamino Valadez’s petition for review and remanded the case to this court with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the case in light of the amendments to 1 Penal Code section 1170.95 enacted by Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). In our prior opinion, we concluded the trial court did not err by denying Valadez’s section 1170.95 resentencing petition without first issuing an order to show cause and hearing testimony. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, which required the jury to find defendant acted with the specific intent to kill; the jury also found true a multiple-murder special circumstance, which required the jury to find that defendant possessed a specific intent to kill. Following the Supreme Court’s instructions, we vacated our prior decision. After reevaluating the case, we again conclude the trial court did not err based on the jury’s guilty verdict on the conspiracy to commit murder charge, and its finding that the multiple-murder special circumstance allegation was true. The amendments to section 1170.95 enacted by Senate Bill No. 775 do not alter this conclusion. Valadez is therefore ineligible for relief under section 1170.95 as a matter of law.