People v. Rocha CA2/4

Filed 12/5/23 P. v. Rocha CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B326920

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA409258) v.

ARMANDO ROCHA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke II, Judge. Affirmed. Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Armando Rocha appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Rocha filed a supplemental brief. We review the contentions Rocha raises in his supplemental brief and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Conviction and sentence As discussed in the opinion in Rocha’s direct appeal, in 2014 Rocha and codefendant Javier Trujillo were charged with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and with gang and firearm use allegations. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), 12022.53, subds. (b)-(e).) One prior serious felony, also a strike conviction, was alleged as to Rocha. (§ 667, subds. (a)(1) & (b)-(j), 1170.12.) (People v. Rocha (Jan. 29, 2018, B270706) [nonpub. opn.].) “The jury convicted Rocha and Trujillo of first-degree murder and found the gang and firearm use allegations to be true. The court found the prior serious felony allegation as to Rocha to be true. Rocha was sentenced to 80 years to life in prison, consisting of 25 years to life for the murder conviction, doubled, plus 25 years to life for the gun use enhancement, and a five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). No term was imposed for the gang enhancement. He was given custody credits and assessed various fines and fees.” (People v. Rocha, supra.) A different panel of this court remanded the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion under