People v. Sanchez CA5

Filed 10/23/23 P. v. Sanchez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F085622 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRL007281) v.

ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Kaiya R. Pirolo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2013, appellant and defendant Alejandro Sanchez (defendant) was convicted after a jury trial of premeditated attempted murder with firearm and great bodily injury enhancements, and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. In 2023, the trial court denied defendant’s Penal Code1 section 1172.6 petition and found he failed to make a prima facie case for resentencing. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts and procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to both People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant submitted a supplemental brief. We address his contentions and affirm the trial court’s denial of his petition. FACTS2 “In August 2011, defendant began living in Los Banos with Cynthia Ramos, his mother, and Rito Ramos, his stepfather. Rito[3] had been defendant’s stepfather since defendant was six years old. Rito let defendant use a 1997 Ford Ranger pickup truck,

1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code. 2 The following facts are from this court’s nonpublished opinion in People v. Sanchez (Jan. 22, 2016, F067089) [nonpub. opn.] (Sanchez), which affirmed the judgment in defendant’s direct appeal. The People filed the opinion as an exhibit in opposition to defendant’s petition. This court also granted defendant’s request to take judicial notice of the reporter’s transcript from his jury trial. In reviewing a section 1172.6 petition, the court may rely on “the procedural history of the case recited in any prior appellate opinion.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3); People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 292; People v. Cooper (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 393, 400, fn. 9.) The role of the appellate opinion is limited, however, and the court may not rely on factual summaries contained in prior appellate decisions or engage in fact finding at the prima facie stage. (Clements, at p. 292; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972.) We have quoted the factual statement from defendant’s direct appeal to place his current arguments in context, and will not rely on that factual statement to resolve his appeal from the trial court’s order that found his petition did not state a prima facie case for relief. 3 “To avoid confusion, we refer to members of the Ramos family by their first names. No disrespect is intended.”