People v. Arredondo CA2/5

Filed 6/14/23 P. v. Arredondo CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B320115

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. KA061196)

ALFRED ARREDONDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rob B. Villeza, Judge. Affirmed. Victor J. Morse, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Following a jury trial in 2004, defendant Alfred Arredondo (defendant) was convicted of one count of first degree murder, one count of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant, and one count of assault with a deadly weapon. The jury found true allegations that defendant (1) personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in connection with the murder and corporal injury convictions and (2) inflicted great bodily harm under circumstances involving domestic violence in connection with the corporal injury and assault counts. Defendant was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in state prison for the murder, doubled to 50 years pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus a determinate term of six years attributable to the sentencing enhancements. This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Arredondo (Apr. 14, 2005, B175117) [nonpub. opn.] (Arredondo I).) Many years later, defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95). After appointing counsel for defendant, the trial court held a hearing and denied defendant’s petition based on his failure to make a prima facie case for relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) The trial court found the jury had not been instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine and both the transcript of defendant’s preliminary hearing and the opinion in Arredondo I established defendant was the murder victim’s actual killer. Defendant appealed, and this court appointed counsel to represent him. After examining the record, counsel filed an