People v. Raynoha CA4/1

Filed 1/25/24 P. v. Raynoha CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082107

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD173300)

DAVID A. RAYNOHA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2005, David Raynoha pleaded guilty to one count of second degree

murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In 2020, Raynoha filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, received briefing, and held a hearing. The court concluded Raynoha was not eligible for relief under the statute and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. Raynoha appealed and this court reversed the trial court’s decision in an unpublished opinion and remanded the case with directions to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing. (People v. Raynoha (D078748, April 19, 2022).) On remand, the court held a contested evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved Raynoha was guilty of murder under the current state of the law. As such, the court concluded Raynoha was a major participant who acted with reckless disregard for human life. The court denied the petition. Raynoha filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious, or arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel contends this appeal should not be limited to the review process of Delgadillo, since it follows an evidentiary hearing. Instead, counsel argues we should independently review the record for error as establish by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel invites the court to distinguish this case from Delgadillo. We decline the invitation to discuss the scope of the court’s opinion in Delgadillo. In that case the court authorized appellate courts to exercise their discretion to conduct a Wende review where the court’s find it appropriate. We have elected to exercise our discretion to independently review the record following the guidelines