People v. Zeigler CA3

Filed 1/29/24 P. v. Zeigler CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097826

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CM034238, CM034425) v.

ANCHALLA ANDRE ZEIGLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Anchalla Andre Zeigler appeals from a postconviction resentencing order under Penal Code former section 1171.1 (now § 1172.75).1 Appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to independently review the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have exercised our discretion to conduct such a review and will affirm the trial court’s order. (See, e.g., People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232.)

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND In case No. CM034425, defendant shot the victim in the chest after an argument. Police conducted a parole search of defendant’s home and found the gun used in the shooting, leading to case No. CM034238. In 2011, both cases were tried before a jury, which found defendant guilty of possession of a firearm as a convicted felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of ammunition as a convicted felon (former § 12316, subd. (b)(1)) in case No. CM034238, and attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§ 664, 192, subd. (a)) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) in case No. CM034425. In case No. CM034425, the jury also found true allegations defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court then found true allegations defendant had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 years eight months in state prison. In March 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition but set a hearing under former section 1171.1 to consider resentencing based on the prior prison term enhancements. In the interim, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was also denied because defendant had not yet exhausted his available remedies. In December 2022, the trial court held a resentencing hearing. The parties stipulated to defendant’s criminal history as set forth in the original probation report and agreed the trial court could take judicial notice of the court’s files related to defendant’s criminal history. The trial court struck the two prior prison term enhancements. Noting defendant was less than 26 years old at the time of the offense, the trial court considered but rejected the imposition of a lower term sentence because it would not be in the interest of justice given the aggravating factors. In particular, the trial court noted defendant’s prior convictions were of increasing seriousness, defendant had poor performance on probation, had served prior prison terms, and had committed the offense