People v. Vargas CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS286199
- Trial judge
- Garry G. Haehnle
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Buchanan
Analysis
The trial court dismissed Vargas's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, determining he failed to establish a prima facie case because the jury instructions required a finding that he was the actual killer. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, finding no potentially meritorious issues after an independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Dismissal of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“The court determined Vargas had not established a prima facie case for relief under the statute and therefore dismissed the petition.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no error in the trial court's determination that Vargas failed to establish a prima facie case, noting the absence of natural and probable consequences or felony murder instructions meant the jury necessarily found him to be the actual killer. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying no potentially meritorious issues when representing an indigent defendant on appeal.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and to request leave to withdraw if none are found, subject to independent court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Anders/Delgadillo framework for reviewing appeals where appointed counsel identifies no meritorious issues. The court performed the required independent review of the record and affirmed the trial court's dismissal based on the specific jury instructions that precluded the theories of liability under section 1172.6.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Raul Vargas's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding the jury had not been instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony murder and therefore necessarily found him to be the actual killer. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo no-issue brief, Vargas filed a supplemental brief attacking trial counsel and witness credibility rather than the resentencing order, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that the jury instructions (no natural and probable consequences or felony-murder theory) required the jury to find Vargas was the actual killer“The court concluded that under the instructions the jury would have to find Vargas was the actual killer.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing is a question of law reviewed independently, and the record of conviction—including jury instructions—may be consulted to determine ineligibility as a matter of law. If the jury was instructed only on a direct, actual-killer theory of second degree murder and found a personal deadly-weapon-use enhancement, Vargas could still be convicted under current law and is ineligible under section 1172.6. The appellate court's independent review reached the same result. The opinion does not reproduce the instructions, so my agreement rests on the trial court's description as recounted in the opinion. |
Rejection of Vargas's supplemental-brief contentions (ineffective assistance of trial counsel and perjured trial testimony) as not bearing on the validity of the resentencing order“Vargas does not address any argument to the validity of the order denying his petition for resentencing. The supplemental brief does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court A section 1172.6 proceeding is not a vehicle to relitigate trial errors or the sufficiency or credibility of trial evidence; the only question on appeal from a prima facie denial is whether the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law. Claims of ineffective assistance at the 2017 trial and that witnesses lied were cognizable, if at all, on the original direct appeal or by habeas corpus, and the court correctly declined to treat them as grounds for reversal here. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Sets procedures for appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues; the court must evaluate arguments in a defendant's supplemental brief and may, in its discretion, independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consult the record of conviction, including jury instructions, to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding; this is the governing standard for the ruling under review and was not cited.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed Delgadillo by addressing the supplemental brief and independently reviewing the record, and its conclusion that a jury instructed only on an actual-killer theory forecloses relief is consistent with settled law. It did not, however, cite Lewis or otherwise articulate the prima facie standard or describe the instructions beyond the trial court's summary, leaving the analysis thin.
Opinion
Filed 10/23/24 P. v. Vargas 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, D083605
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS286199)
RAUL B. VARGAS, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed. Raul B. Vargas, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Raul B. Vargas of second-degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)), and found Vargas used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court sentenced Vargas to an indeterminate term of 45 years to life in prison, plus a one-year 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. determinate term. Vargas appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Vargas (Nov. 28, 2018, D073025).) In March 2023, Vargas filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing The trial court noted there were no jury instructions on natural and probable consequences or felony murder. The court concluded that under the instructions the jury would have to find Vargas was the actual killer. The court determined Vargas had not established a prima facie case for relief under the statute and therefore dismissed the petition. Vargas filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issue for reversal on appeal. We offered Vargas the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief. In his brief, Vargas complains about the trial counsel. He argues trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the original trial. Vargas also argues various witnesses lied at trial. Vargas does not address any argument to the validity of the order denying his petition for resentencing. The supplemental brief does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief that does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. To comply with the mandates of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel does identify one possible issue which was considered in 2 evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in failing to find Vargas had established a prima facie case for relief. We have independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has not disclosed any potentially meritorious issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Vargas on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Vargas’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19