People v. Hill CA1/4

Filed 2/23/23 P. v. Hill CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165534 v. D’VAUGHN CORTEZ HILL, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR321233) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant D’Vaughn Cortez Hill appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95.1 We find no error and affirm. Background In December 2017, defendant was convicted of attempted murder in connection with the shooting of Dennis Keesee, and the jury found true the allegation that he discharged a gun causing great bodily injury and personally inflicted great bodily injury on Keesee. Defendant was also convicted of one count of attempted voluntary manslaughter in the shooting of a second victim and the jury found true the allegations that he personally

Section 1170.95 of the Penal Code was renumbered as section 1172.6 1

without change in the text, effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the provision by its new numbering. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury on that victim. The trial court sentenced him to a term of three years four months in prison consecutive to 32 years to life. He appealed the judgment and we affirmed. (People v. Hill (July 16, 2019, A154192) [nonpub. opn.].)2 In April 2022, defendant filed his petition for resentencing. At the same time, defendant also filed a motion to dismiss his firearm enhancements under section 1385, as amended by Senate Bill No. 81 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.). The trial court denied the petition and the motion, and defendant appealed.3 Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel, unable to find a reasonably arguable issue, filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Relying on People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we informed defendant that the protections afforded by Wende, supra, at pages 441–442, including an independent review of the record by Courts of Appeal, do not apply on appeal of a postconviction petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. We further informed defendant that his appeal would be dismissed if he did not file a supplemental brief. Defendant timely filed a supplemental brief. We address each of his arguments below. Discussion Initially, defendant’s request to dismiss and replace his appointed appellate counsel is denied. The sole basis urged by defendant for