People v. Bruno CA3

Filed 12/11/23 P. v. Bruno CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098283

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F06363)

v.

ALEX JAMES BRUNO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Alex James Bruno appeals from the denial of his postconviction 1 petition seeking resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6. Counsel for defendant filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, asking this court to exercise its discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. Defendant also filed a supplemental brief in propria persona. We will affirm. I. BACKGROUND In June 2015, a jury found defendant guilty of attempting to murder two people. The trial court had instructed the jury: “To prove that defendant is guilty of attempted

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

murder, the People must prove that: [¶] 1. The defendant took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing another person; [¶] AND [¶] 2. The defendant intended to kill that person.” The court did not instruct the jury on any other theory of attempted murder. The jury also found defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm during the attempted murders, thereby proximately causing great bodily injury to each victim. The trial court sentenced defendant to 61 years four months to life in state prison. In July 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6, alleging that he could no longer be convicted of attempted murder because of changes made to the definition of murder in sections 188 and 189. (See Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-3.) The trial court appointed counsel to represent defendant. The People filed a response to defendant’s petition, arguing defendant was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 because the jury’s findings precluded any possibility that defendant could no longer be convicted of attempted murder. Defendant filed a reply addressing the preclusive effect of the firearm enhancements but not addressing the attempted murder verdict. The trial court held a hearing and determined defendant had failed to make a prima facie case that he was entitled to relief because the jury had not been instructed on a theory of attempted murder eliminated by the changes to sections 188 and 189. Because defendant could still be convicted of attempted murder under the only theory presented to the jury, the trial court denied defendant’s petition. Defendant timely appealed from the order. II. DISCUSSION Under Delgadillo, we must “evaluate the specific arguments presented in [defendant’s supplemental brief],” but we are not compelled to undertake an “independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.” (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Defendant argues: (1) his appointed counsel