People v. Zamora CA2/8

Filed 10/20/23 P. v. Zamora CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B326059

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA118561) v.

EDWIN ZAMORA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Laura R. Walton, Judge. Affirmed.

James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Herbert S. Tetef and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Defendant and appellant Edwin Zamora appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 (former § 1170.95). Former section 1170.95 was renumbered and recodified as section 1172.6 with no change in the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For clarity, we refer to former section 1170.95 only by its new designation (§ 1172.6). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant, along with three accomplices, was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted murder arising from two separate gang-related attacks, on one victim by stabbing, and on the other by shooting. As to count 1 (the shooting incident), the jury found true the allegation the attempted murder was committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation. Gang, deadly weapon and great bodily injury allegations were also found true. Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 43 years to life. (People v. Virto (Oct. 21, 2016, B243201) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant, who was 17 at the time the crimes were committed, filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court following this court’s initial decision in 2015 affirming his conviction. The Supreme Court granted review and deferred further consideration pending its resolution of a juvenile sentencing issue in another case. After issuance of its decision in People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 283–284, the Supreme Court transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our original decision and reconsider the cause in light of Franklin. After doing so, we again affirmed defendant’s conviction, as well as the convictions of his codefendants. (People v. Virto, supra, B243201.)