People v. Molina CA4/3

Filed 3/6/23 P. v. Molina CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, G061906 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15CF2461) v. OPINION RICHARD MOLINA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Kristen Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Richard Molina was convicted by a jury in 2017 of attempted murder (Pen. 1 Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)), battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), and possession of a weapon in a correctional facility (§ 4574, subd. (a)). The jury also found it true that Molina acted with premeditation and deliberation in committing the attempted murder, and that he had personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon. The jury did not find it true that Molina personally inflicted great bodily injury. Prior to sentencing, the court found it true that Molina had previously suffered four 2 felony convictions that caused him to serve sentences in state prison. The court sentenced Molina to serve twelve years to life; this sentence was later reduced to eight years to life. We affirmed his conviction, although we directed that his sentence be modified. (People v. Molina (Feb. 26, 2019, G055709) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022 Molina filed a petition pursuant to section 1170.95 (later renumbered 1172.6) requesting that his sentence be vacated and that he be resentenced. The trial court appointed counsel to represent him. The People filed opposition to the petition. On September 16, 2022, after receiving additional briefing from the parties, the trial court conducted a hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing, the court found that Molina had failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief and therefore denied his petition. Molina filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent Molina on appeal. In conducting her analysis of potential appellate issues, counsel informed us in her declaration that she had reviewed the appellate record, and consulted with a staff attorney at Appellate Defenders,