People v. Vigil CA3

Filed 5/26/23 P. v. Vigil CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097136

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F06993)

v.

ANTHONY MICHAEL VIGIL,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Anthony Michael Vigil guilty of the first degree murder of Michael Gonzales and found true an allegation defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm resulting in Gonzales’s death. He was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison. This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (See People v. Vigil (June 10, 2016, C074923) [nonpub. opn.] (Vigil).)

1

Defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code 1 section 1172.6,2 which the trial court denied. Defendant appealed the order denying him postconviction relief, and, although this is not his first appeal as of right, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising multiple issues concerning his trial. Having considered defendant’s supplemental brief in accordance with Delgadillo, we shall affirm. BACKGROUND In August 2011, Gonzales took his car to defendant’s autobody shop to be repaired.3 The repairs took longer than expected, and a dispute arose over defendant’s work on the car and payment for the repairs. In October 2011, Gonzales went to defendant’s shop to pay him and retrieve his car. While there, defendant shot Gonzales multiple times with a shotgun, killing him. Defendant testified he shot Gonzales in self- defense after Gonzales came after him.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Defendant originally filed his petition under former section 1170.95. The Legislature amended section 1170.95 effective January 1, 2022, under Senate Bill No. 775 (2021- 2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2). Further, Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6, without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For clarity, we refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion. 3 We draw the brief factual summary from this court’s prior opinion in defendant’s direct appeal in Vigil, supra, C074923. We rely on that opinion solely to summarize the background of this case; our consideration of whether defendant is entitled to relief under section 1172.6 is based on our independent review of the record of conviction. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 222, fn. 2.)