People v. Mauldin CA4/1

Filed 5/22/24 P. v. Mauldin CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082621

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. CR50251)

CHARLES JAMES MAULDIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Yvonne Esperanza Campos, Judge. Affirmed. Charles James Mauldin, in pro. per.; and Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Charles James Mauldin appeals from an order denying his petition for

resentencing under Penal Code,1 section 1172.6. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Mauldin filed a supplemental brief. We find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1980, a jury convicted Mauldin of first degree murder. (§ 187.) The jury also found Mauldin personally used a firearm while he committed the murder. (§ 12022.5.) Mauldin was sentenced to two years plus 25 years to life. This court affirmed the judgment in the direct appeal. (People v. Mauldin (Jul. 22, 1981, 4 Crim. No. 11930) [nonpub. opn.].) In October 2022, Mauldin filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. After appointment of counsel and briefing by the parties, the superior court issued a written decision denying the petition. The court found Mauldin failed to state a prima facie claim for relief under section 1172.6, because the record of conviction established Mauldin as the actual killer. DISCUSSION Mauldin’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and requesting this court proceed pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. Counsel identifies the following issues to assist the court: (1) Did the trial court err by denying Mauldin’s petition at the prima facie stage?; (2) Did the trial court err by denying the petition without holding a hearing?; and (3) Did the trial court err by relying on the statement of facts contained in the prior appellate opinion? We conclude the trial court properly denied Mauldin’s section 1172.6 petition because Mauldin failed to state a prima facie claim for relief. At Mauldin’s trial, the jury was instructed that first degree murder is a willful,