People v. Guzman CA2/6

Filed 11/30/22 P. v. Guzman CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B319490 (Super. Ct. No. 1312678) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

DENNIS GARCIA GUZMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Dennis Garcia Guzman appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1 The resentencing petition concerned his 2011 conviction of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder with findings of a principal armed with a firearm and the crime committed to benefit a criminal street gang. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1), 186.22, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced Guzman to a prison term of

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

50 years to life. We affirmed the conviction on appeal. (People v. Guzman (July 24, 2013, B232497) [nonpub. opn.].) Following a later petition for habeas corpus, we reversed Guzman’s first degree murder conviction based upon the holding in People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 158-159 [aider and abettor may not be convicted of first degree murder pursuant to natural and probable consequences doctrine]. (In re Guzman (Mar. 3, 2017, B264256) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the prosecutor accepted a reduction to second degree murder rather than retry the matter. On January 3, 2019, Guzman filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court appointed counsel for Guzman and accepted briefing. The court then decided that Guzman was entitled to relief and it issued an order to show cause. On June 21, 2021, following briefing and admission of the reporter’s transcripts of the 2011 trial, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Guzman was the actual shooter and had the intent to kill the victim when he discharged the firearm. Alternatively, the court also found beyond a reasonable doubt that Guzman harbored malice aforethought as a direct aider and abettor to second degree implied malice murder. Guzman now appeals this decision. We appointed counsel to represent Guzman in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening briefing raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496.) In response, we advised Guzman that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have received a response from him asserting that the trial court’s decision regarding actual malice is not supported by