People v. Cisneros CA2/1

Filed 3/19/24 P. v. Cisneros CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B329766

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA329573) v.

ERNESTO CISNEROS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Ernesto Cisneros appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code2 section 1172.6 (former § 1170.953). We find no error and affirm. A. Procedural Background An information, filed on May 22, 2008, charged Cisneros with one count of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and two counts of willful, deliberate, and premediated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a); 664). The information further specially alleged as to all three counts that Cisneros personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury to the named victims. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b-d).) After trial, the jury found Cisneros guilty on all counts and found the firearm-related special allegations true. When Cisneros appealed, we reversed the murder conviction but did not disturb the attempted murder convictions or the true findings on the attempted murder related special allegations. (People v. Cisneros (Dec. 7, 2010, B216165) [nonpub. opn.].) The People did

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of interpretation or application.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Amin., § 8.1(1).) We set forth only those portions of the factual and procedural history necessary to explain our disposition. 2 All unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.