People v. Aragon CA6

Filed 7/14/22 P. v. Aragon CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H048398 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS081625A)

v.

DANIEL ARAGON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Aragon appeals following the denial of his petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.951 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4).2 The parties agree that the trial court erred in making certain factual findings and should not have denied Aragon’s petition at the prima facie stage. We concur and therefore reverse the trial court’s order and remand with directions. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 27, 2009, the Monterey County District Attorney filed an amended information against Aragon and three codefendants (Roman Gasca, Samuel Aragon, and Mike Martinez). Aragon was charged with two counts of first degree murder (§ 187,

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Section 1170.95 has been amended and renumbered as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10, eff. June 30, 2022; see also Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.)

subd. (a); counts 1 & 2), two counts of attempted first degree murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); counts 3 & 4), one count of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 5), one count of gang conspiracy to commit a crime injurious to the public (§ 182.5; count 6), and one count of shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246; count 7). In addition, the information charged Aragon with gang allegations (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) in connection with counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Shortly before Aragon’s trial was scheduled to begin, on July 22, 2010, Aragon elected (over the objection of his counsel and without a plea agreement) to plead guilty to all the counts and allegations.3 On a written waiver of rights form, Aragon initialed an acknowledgement that the maximum possible sentence he could receive was 120 years to life, plus three years. The waiver of rights form did not contain any statement of facts about the crimes to which Aragon was pleading guilty or the theory of liability for his convictions for first degree murder. The probation report prepared for Aragon’s sentencing contains a section describing the “circumstances of the offense,” (bolding & capitalization omitted) that states it was derived from police reports and information from the district attorney’s office. That section describes the killing of two men and the attempted killing of two others on May 25, 2008, by a man yelling gang slogans. The report generally describes Aragon’s role in the offenses as the driver of the car in which the actual shooter (or shooters) had been riding immediately prior to the crime. Unidentified individuals who had participated in the crime told an investigator from the district attorney’s office that Aragon had helped plan the murders in retaliation for a gang-related shooting but was not the actual shooter in the instant offenses. The report states that Aragon “has expressed extreme remorse for his part in these crimes.”