People v. Rodriguez CA2/2

Filed 6/27/23 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/2 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B305739

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA024452)

VIDAL RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Pursuant to the March 29, 2023, order of the California Supreme Court, we vacate our January 29, 2021, decision in this matter. Upon reconsideration in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232–233 & fn. 6 (Delgadillo), we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. Based on that independent review, we affirm the trial court’s

order denying the Penal Code section 1172.61 (former § 1170.95)2 petition filed by defendant and appellant Vidal Rodriguez. BACKGROUND In 1991, a jury found defendant guilty of one count of second degree murder. (§ 187, subd. (a); People v. Riojas (Jul. 13, 1993, B063404) [nonpub. opn.], at p. 1.) The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in state prison. (Ibid.) On direct appeal, we affirmed the judgment as to defendant. (Id. at p. 18.) On February 18, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 and was appointed counsel. The People filed an opposition to the petition which, among other things, contested the constitutionality of Senate Bill Number 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), the bill enacting section 1172.6. The People attached multiple exhibits, including this court’s opinion in defendant’s direct appeal and the jury instructions given at defendant’s 1991 trial. Defendant’s counsel filed a reply. On January 30, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on defendant’s petition for resentencing. After receiving the record of Rodriguez’s appeal and hearing argument, the court took the matter under submission. On February 3, 2020, the trial court denied defendant’s petition, finding that defendant was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 because he was convicted as an aider and abettor and not under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or