People v. Jimenez CA4/1

Filed 11/15/22 P. v. Jimenez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D080844

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVA018285)

VICTOR MANUEL JIMENEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Mary E. Fuller, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2007, Victor Manuel Jimenez was convicted of first degree murder

(Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found Jimenez used a deadly

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

weapon in the commission of the offense. The court sentenced Jimenez to an indeterminate term of 26 years to life. Jimenez appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Jimenez (Oct. 6, 2009, D055122).) In 2022, Jimenez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered 1172.6). The court appointed counsel for Jimenez, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction and held a hearing. At the hearing the court said: “It is the Petitioner’s responsibility to present sufficient information in his petition to show that he could not be presently convicted of murder or attempted murder because of the changes in the law. [¶] The Court, while I cannot make any factual determinations as to the underlying facts of the case, based on the court’s record, the Information that was filed, and the jury instructions that were given, The Court finds that the petitioner has not met his requirements under 1170.95. [¶] And I will deny the request for an order to show cause hearing.”