People v. Xotoy CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Jun 20, 2024 No. B334116Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a Penal Code section 1172.6 petition, holding that the trial court's failure to appoint counsel was harmless error because the defendant was convicted after the effective date of the statutory amendments and his claims were improper collateral attacks on his conviction.

Issues

Whether the trial court's failure to appoint counsel for a section 1172.6 petition was prejudicial error.
Whether a section 1172.6 petition may be used to relitigate trial errors or the sufficiency of the evidence.
Whether a defendant convicted after the effective date of Senate Bill No. 1437 is eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s error in not appointing counsel is harmless.”

“An appeal from a post-judgment petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is not a vehicle to raise unrelated claims of error allegedly committed by the trial court”

“He was not convicted under the prior law, so he has already received the benefits of Senate Bill No. 1437.”

Filed 6/20/24 P. v. Xotoy CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B334116

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA112509-01) v.

SANTOS LEONEL XOTOY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.

Nancy J. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), we review this appeal of an order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing brought under Penal Code1 section 1172.6. We affirm. BACKGROUND On August 23, 2019, the People charged appellant Santos Leonel Xotoy by amended information with the premeditated murder of Higinio Jimenez-Gonzalez in violation of section 187, subdivision (a). It was also alleged Xotoy personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d). On November 12, 2019, a jury found Xotoy guilty as charged. On December 4, 2019, he was sentenced to a term of 50 years to life in prison. (People v. Xotoy, (July 28, 2021, B303336) [nonpub. opn.].) On July 17, 2023, Xotoy filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. No response was filed and the trial court did not appoint counsel on his behalf. On August 3 2023, the trial court summarily denied the petition, finding, “The defendant has not filed a facially sufficient motion. The defendant’s jury trial took place after the changes in the law, and was therefore convicted of murder under the penal codes that were amended on 01/01/19.” Only to provide context, we recite the facts of the events underlying the murder conviction. On May 9, 2016, Xotoy went to the victim’s place of employment, summoned the victim outside the building, accused the victim of sleeping with Xotoy’s ex- girlfriend, pulled a gun from his waistband, fired multiple

People v. Xotoy CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B334116

SANTOS LEONEL XOTOY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, P. J.

GRIMES, J.

WILEY, J.

AI Brief