People v. Sosa CA2/6

Filed 8/29/22 P. v. Sosa CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B319942 (Super. Ct. No. 1214502) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

LUIS GABRIEL RIO SOSA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Luis Gabriel Rio Sosa appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6. (former § 1170.95.)1 We dismiss the appeal. In 2009, a jury convicted appellant of premeditated first degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189), with special findings that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). He was sentenced to 50 years to life in state prison. We affirmed appellant’s conviction. (People v.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Luis Gabriel Rio Sosa (Jan. 24, 2011, B219803) [nonpub. opn.] (Sosa).) In November 2021, appellant, acting in propria persona, filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. In his petition, he claimed he was convicted of first degree murder “pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine,” and could not now be convicted of murder in light of the changes made to sections 188 and 189 as part of Senate Bill No. 1437. The People opposed the motion because appellant was not convicted under a theory of felony murder or natural and probable consequences. Instead, he was the actual killer, who acted with malice, and could still be convicted of murder under the law as amended. Following a hearing, the trial court summarily denied appellant’s petition for resentencing finding that he was the “shooter” in a “deliberate” and “premeditated murder.” We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. We advised appellant he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. He subsequently filed a five-page handwritten supplemental brief. Because this is an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief, appellant is not entitled to our independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 501 (Serrano); People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) We do, however, consider the issues raised in his supplemental brief. (Cole, at p. 1040.)