People v. Zamora CA2/7

Filed 10/6/23 P. v. Zamora CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B327392

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA349543) v.

ESEQUIEL ZAMORA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; Esequiel Zamora, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted Esequiel Zamora in 2010 on one count of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a),1 two counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, sub. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Zamora to an aggregate prison term of 36 years four months to life. We affirmed Zamora’s conviction. (People v. Zamora (Nov. 14, 2011, B224529) [nonpub. opn.].) On December 7, 2022 the superior court denied Zamora’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95) without issuing an order to show cause. The court ruled that Zamora was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the jury, in finding Zamora committed the murder and attempted murders willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation, necessarily found he had the specific intent to kill and that the trial court had not instructed the jury on the natural and probable consequences doctrine or any other theory in which malice could have been imputed to him. ~(RT 192)~ Zamora appealed from the order denying his petition. Zamora’s appointed counsel, after reviewing the record, did not identify any arguable issues. We have independently reviewed the record and considered the arguments in Zamora’s supplemental brief. We also find no arguable issue and affirm.