People v. Valdez CA4/3

Filed 12/20/23 P. v. Valdez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062143

v. (Super. Ct. No. 07CF3182)

VINCENT JULIAN VALDEZ, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed. Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2008, a jury convicted defendant Vincent Julian Valdez, Jr., of two counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a))1, four counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and two counts of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), arising from two separate drive-by shootings. The jury also found numerous firearm and gang related enhancement allegations to be true. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 46 years. Another panel of this court affirmed the judgment, with the exception of one gang enhancement related to the second shooting. (People v. Valdez (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1429.) In 2022, defendant filed a petition seeking resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. After the trial court appointed counsel for defendant, the parties provided briefing. The trial court held a hearing at which it summarily denied the petition, concluding defendant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. It explained: the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine; the jury found defendant acted with an intent to kill; and, thus, the record of conviction demonstrates he is not entitled to relief as a matter of law. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, and counsel was appointed to represent him. In compliance with People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court they found no arguable issues in support of defendant’s appeal. This court notified defendant he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf and advised him his appeal may be dismissed as abandoned if no such brief were to be filed. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief and the time to file one has passed. We nevertheless exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)