People v. Duenas CA2/1

Filed 3/7/24 P. v. Duenas CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B330378

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA088051) v.

JULIO DUENAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mike Camacho, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Because this appeal is determined by well-settled legal principles, we decide the matter by memorandum disposition. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) In 2011, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Julio Duenas of one count of first degree murder, three counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder, and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, and found true numerous enhancement allegations. Defendant admitted to suffering prior convictions subjecting him to sentencing under the “Three Strikes” law. The trial court sentenced him to 275 years to life plus 46 years. On appeal we identified errors with two of the enhancements. On remand the trial court resentenced defendant to 275 years to life plus 40 years. In May 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 former section 1170.95.2 The resentencing court appointed counsel for defendant and received a response to the petition from the prosecutor. The court then held a hearing at which defendant’s counsel submitted on defendant’s petition and the prosecutor submitted on the response. The court denied the petition, finding defendant was “the sole shooter,” and “[t]he jury was not instructed on any theory of liability which would otherwise make Mr. Duenas eligible for relief.” Defendant appealed, and appointed counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues. We invited defendant to file a supplemental brief, which he did.