People v. Bonilla CA2/2

Filed 2/7/23 P. v. Bonilla CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B321511

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA399015) v.

MANUEL BONILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: In 2013, a jury found defendant and appellant Manuel Bonilla guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),1 possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351), possession for sale of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), and two counts of possession of a firearm by a

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). As to the murder, the jury found true, among other allegations, that defendant personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death to the victim within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of 57 years to life in state prison. On direct appeal, we instructed the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect an additional day of presentence custody credit; we otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Bonilla (Dec. 2, 2014, B249622) [nonpub. opn.], at p. 15.) On April 29, 2021, defendant, in propria persona, filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former § 1170.95).2 On May 7, 2021, the trial court summarily denied the petition on the ground that defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case for relief. On February 28, 2022, defendant filed a second section 1172.6 petition. This time, the trial court found that the petition met “the basic requirements of the statute.” Accordingly, the court appointed counsel to represent defendant. The People opposed the petition. On June 9, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s second section 1172.6 petition. The court again found that defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case for relief. The court explained that the jury had been instructed on the theories that defendant shot the victim and that he was an aider and abettor to the shooting; the jury had not been instructed on felony murder or the doctrine of natural and probable consequences. The jury