People v. Jacaso CA4/1

Filed 7/10/24 P. v. Jacaso CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082985

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN024923)

ANTHONY JACASO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David G. Brown, Judge. Affirmed. Anthony Jacaso, in pro. per., and Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In 1996, Anthony Jacaso pled guilty to one count of second degree

murder. (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a).) In 2023, Jacaso filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 on the ground that he “could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes made to Penal Code [sections] 188 and 189 effective January 1, 2019.” The court

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

appointed counsel for Jacaso, received briefing, and held a hearing. The trial court found that Jacaso had not made a prima facie case for resentencing and denied his petition. Jacaso appealed. Appellate counsel subsequently filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating he has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. We notified Jacaso of his right to file his own brief on appeal, and he has elected to do so. We have reviewed the issues raised by Jacaso and have independently reviewed relevant portions of the record. We agree with counsel that there are no potentially meritorious arguments for appeal. We therefore affirm. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo, and Jacaso has elected to file his own supplemental brief. Although we are “required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief,” we are not “compel[led to conduct] an independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Jacaso does not raise any potentially meritorious issues in his supplemental brief, in which he claims that (1) his diminished capacity precluded him from knowingly and voluntarily accepting a plea, (2) the evidence was insufficient to show that he killed his son with implied or express malice, and (3) his youth at the time of the offense constituted a mitigating factor. These arguments are outside the scope of this section 1172.6 petition as they cannot support his claim that he “could not presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to Section 188 . . . made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3), italics added.)