People v. Canela CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD251838
- Trial judge
- Rachel Cano
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Truc T. Do (author), Joan K. Irion, Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court denied Canela's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case because the record of conviction showed he was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, concluding that the jury instructions and lack of alternative theories of liability established his ineligibility for relief as a matter of law.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage“The record of conviction thus establishes that in convicting Canela of attempted murder of a peace officer, the jury determined he was the actual perpetrator. He is therefore ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 if the record of conviction establishes they were the actual perpetrator of the offense. The absence of felony murder or natural and probable consequences instructions, combined with the specific jury instructions on willful and deliberate intent, supports the conclusion that the jury found Canela to be the sole perpetrator. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appellate review when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in a pro per appeal, requiring independent review of the record.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956 — Supports the proposition that a defendant is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief if the record of conviction unequivocally establishes they were the sole perpetrator.
- relied: People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 — Clarifies that the purpose of a section 1172.6 proceeding is to provide the benefit of amended sections 188 and 189, not to provide a do-over on unrelated issues.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the legal standard for ineligibility under section 1172.6 based on the record of conviction and applies it to the specific jury instructions given at trial. It appropriately dismisses the appellant's unrelated claims regarding discovery as outside the scope of the resentencing petition.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe superior court denied Ignacio Canela's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding the record of conviction showed he was the actual perpetrator of the attempted premeditated murder of a peace officer. On appeal under People v. Delgadillo, the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, rejected the discovery-related claims in Canela's supplemental brief as outside the scope of section 1172.6, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that the record of conviction established Canela was the actual perpetrator and thus ineligible as a matter of law“There were no codefendants at Canela’s trial, and no instructions were given for felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or imputed malice.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The jury was instructed only on direct, willful, deliberate attempted murder, with no felony-murder, natural-and-probable-consequences, or imputed-malice theories, there were no codefendants, and the jury found Canela personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury. Under the record-of-conviction analysis sanctioned by Lewis and applied in Garcia, such a defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, so denial without an evidentiary hearing was proper. The court did not state the standard of review, though de novo review applies to a prima facie denial. |
Rejection of supplemental-brief claims that the People withheld DNA and alcohol-analysis evidence sought in section 1054.9 postconviction discovery“The issues raised by Canela in his supplemental brief are thus outside the scope of his section 1172.6 proceedings, and he fails to raise any meritorious arguments for appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is limited to defendants convicted under theories eliminated by the amendments to sections 188 and 189; claims about discovery or the sufficiency of trial evidence do not bear on eligibility. Farfan correctly states that the proceeding is not a vehicle to relitigate unrelated issues in the conviction. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Procedure for appeals from postconviction orders where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues; when the defendant files a supplemental brief the court must evaluate the arguments raised and may conduct independent review of the record.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956 — Denial of a section 1172.6 petition is proper where the record of conviction unequivocally establishes the defendant was the sole and actual perpetrator.
- relied: People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942 — The purpose of a section 1172.6 proceeding is to give defendants the benefit of amended sections 188 and 189, not to provide a do-over on unrelated issues concerning the conviction.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — At the prima facie stage a court may consult the record of conviction, including jury instructions, to determine ineligibility as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding or weigh evidence; the controlling framework for prima facie denials under section 1172.6.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly concluded from the jury instructions, the absence of codefendants, and the personal-discharge finding that Canela was convicted as the actual perpetrator and is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief, and it properly rejected the discovery claims as beyond the statute's scope. It did not, however, state the standard of review or cite People v. Lewis, the controlling Supreme Court authority on the prima facie inquiry, though these omissions do not affect the result.
Opinion
Filed 10/29/24 P. v. Canela 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, D083568
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD251838)
IGNADO CANELA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed. Ignacio Canela in pro. per., and Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Ignado Canela appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Canela filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the issues raised in 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Canela’s supplemental brief and have independently reviewed the record. (Id. at p. 232.) We find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2016, a jury convicted Canela of attempted premeditated murder of a peace officer (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664, subd. (e), count 1); felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2); felon in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3); carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subd. (a), count 5); possession of a burglary tool (§ 466, count 12); failure to appear (§ 1320.5, count 14); felony evasion (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a), count 4); transportation of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count 6); possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (id., § 11378, count 7); possession of a controlled substance (hydrocodone) (id., § 11377, subd. (a), count 8); possession of a controlled substance (diazepam) (ibid., count 9); possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (ibid., count 10); possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) (id., § 11350, subd. (a), count 11); and possession of narcotics paraphernalia (id., § 11364.1, subd. (a), count 13). The jury also found that as to count 1, Canela personally used and discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) & (d)); as to counts 4, 6, and 7, Canela was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)); as to count 5, that the firearm being carried by Canela was stolen (§ 25850, subd. (c)(2)); as to counts 6, 7 and 10, that Canela had a qualifying prior narcotics conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)); as to counts 1 to 9, and 14, that Canela committed the offenses while out of custody on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)); and that Canela had four prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Canela to prison for 14 years plus a consecutive term of 40 years to life.
2 This court affirmed the judgment in the direct appeal. (People v. Canela (Jan. 16, 2018, D070607) [nonpub. opn.].) In May 2023, Canela filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, alleging he could no longer be convicted of attempted murder under the amendments to sections 188 and 189. After appointment of counsel, briefing by the parties, and a hearing, the superior court issued a written decision denying the petition. The court found Canela failed to state a prima facie claim for relief under section 1172.6, because the record of conviction established Canela was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder. DISCUSSION Canela’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 issue to assist the court in its review: Does the record of conviction support the trial court’s conclusion that Canela is ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law? Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude the trial court properly denied Canela’s section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage. At Canela’s trial, the jury was instructed that attempted premeditated murder was the willful, deliberate, and intentional attempted killing of another person. The jury was further instructed that to find Canela guilty of attempted murder of a peace officer, the jury was required to find that when Canela attempted the murder, he knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was a peace officer. There were no codefendants at Canela’s trial, and no instructions were given for felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or imputed malice. The record of conviction thus establishes that in convicting Canela of attempted murder of a peace officer, the jury 3 determined he was the actual perpetrator. He is therefore ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. (See People v. Garcia (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 956, 969–971 [affirming denial of section 1172.6 resentencing where record of conviction “unequivocally establishes” defendant was the sole perpetrator].) Canela’s contentions in his supplemental brief are without merit. He claims the People are withholding DNA evidence and an alcohol analysis report that he requested during his section 1054.9 postconviction discovery proceedings. The purpose of a section 1172.6 proceeding, however, “ ‘is to give defendants the benefit of amended sections 188 and 189’ ” and “ ‘not to provide a do-over’ ” on unrelated issues regarding their conviction. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947.) The issues raised by Canela in his supplemental brief are thus outside the scope of his section 1172.6 proceedings, and he fails to raise any meritorious arguments for appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Canela’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
DO, J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19