People v. Abiel CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D080726 · 2023-05-04 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD244879
Trial judge: Polly H. Shamoon
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:35Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Abiel's second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was the actual killer and thus ineligible for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of the second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The order denying Abiel’s second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court affirmed the denial because Abiel admitted to being the actual killer, which makes him ineligible for relief under the statute, and because the petition did not allege facts showing he was an aider and abettor liable under the felony murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Denial of the second petition based on the argument that the issues were fully litigated in the first petition “While there have been subsequent changes to Section [1172.6] through legislative amendments and varying statutory interpretations within the relevant case law, there has been no change in the applicable law or facts to Petitioner’s case that would justify the filing of a successive petition, nor has Petitioner asserted such a justification.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court affirmed the denial because Abiel's status as the actual killer was a dispositive fact that did not change between petitions, and he did not assert any new legal or factual justification for the successive petition.
Denial of the second petition without first receiving briefing as mandated by statute “Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in ruling on the second petition without first receiving briefing as mandated by statute.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court affirmed the denial because Abiel's admission of being the actual killer rendered him ineligible for relief regardless of procedural steps, and the record supported the trial court's finding that he was 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 arguable issues when no arguable issues are found, and requests the court to conduct an independent review of the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to conduct an independent review of the record for error when appointed counsel files a Wende brief indicating no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues and to request the court to conduct an independent review of the record when no arguable issues are found.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the Wende and Anders procedures to review the record independently and correctly affirms the trial court's denial based on Abiel's admission of being the actual killer, which is a dispositive fact for eligibility under section 1172.6. The court also correctly notes that Abiel did not allege facts showing he was an aider and abettor liable under the felony murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine, which is required for eligibility.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Aban Abiel's second Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition, finding the record showed he was the actual killer and that no change in law or facts justified a successive petition. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo/Wende brief, Abiel filed a supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of second section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that Abiel was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief “Abiel does not deny he is the person who stabbed the victim causing death.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is limited to persons convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or other imputed-malice theories; Abiel conceded he personally stabbed the victim and did not claim aider-and-abettor liability, so his attempt to relitigate intent is a sufficiency-of-evidence challenge outside the statute. The court's conclusion follows from the record and the statute, though the opinion does not recite the jury instructions or prior opinion to confirm no imputed-malice theory was presented.
Denial of the second petition without first receiving briefing as contemplated by section 1172.6, subdivision (c) “Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in ruling on the second petition without first receiving briefing as mandated by statute.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court Counsel flagged the issue under Anders but the court did not expressly analyze it, resolving the appeal by a general statement that no arguable issues exist. Under People v. Lewis, failure to follow the statutory procedure at the prima facie stage is state-law error reviewed for prejudice under Watson, and because Abiel is the admitted actual killer, any error was almost certainly harmless; the result is defensible but the reasoning is omitted.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Sets procedure for appointed counsel's no-issue briefs in appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions; court must evaluate arguments in a defendant's supplemental brief and issue a written opinion.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court independently reviews the record for arguable issues when appointed counsel finds none.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage the trial court must appoint counsel and receive briefing before ruling, may rely on the record of conviction to deny a petition, and failure to follow the procedure is state-law error reviewed for prejudice under Watson.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly treated Abiel's supplemental brief as an attempt to relitigate intent by an admitted actual killer, which section 1172.6 does not permit, and properly affirmed under Delgadillo and Wende. It did not, however, expressly address the briefing-procedure issue counsel identified or cite People v. Lewis for the harmless-error framework, and it omitted any description of the record of conviction supporting the actual-killer finding.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 5/4/23 P. v. Abiel 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, D080726

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD244879)

ABAN ABIEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Polly H. Shamoon, Judge. Affirmed. Aban Abiel, in pro. per.; and Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013, a jury convicted Aban Abiel of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found he used a knife in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Abiel was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 16 years to life in prison. Abiel appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Abiel (Dec. 17, 2014, D064565).) In 2018, Abiel filed his first petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The court found Abiel had not stated a prima facie case for relief under the statute and, thus, denied the petition. In 2022, Abiel filed his second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court again denied the petition finding on both petitions that Abiel was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief under the statute. The court stated: “Petitioner’s first petition was denied on July 20, 2020, on the grounds that the record demonstrated Petitioner was the actual killer, and, thus, ineligible for relief. While there have been subsequent changes to Section [1172.6] through legislative amendments and varying statutory interpretations within the relevant case law, there has been no change in the applicable law or facts to Petitioner’s case that would justify the filing of a successive petition, nor has Petitioner asserted such a justification.”

Abiel 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 arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to conduct an independent review of the record for error consistent with the procedure called for in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We have granted the request and independently reviewed the record for error consistent with Wende. We notified Abiel of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Abiel has responded by filing a supplemental brief, which we will discuss later in this opinion. We will omit a statement of facts in this opinion. The facts of the underlying offense are summarized in our previous opinion. (People v. Abiel, supra, D064565.) There is no reason to repeat them here.

2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo, but asks us to apply the Wende procedure and review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. Whether the trial court was correct in stating the issues in this appeal had been fully litigated in the previous petition. 2. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in ruling on the second petition without first receiving briefing as mandated by statute. In his supplemental brief, Abiel argues his form declaration filed with his petition was sufficient to state a prima facie case for relief. Abiel does not deny he is the person who stabbed the victim causing death. He seeks to make the case that the stabbing was not intentional and that someone else actually brought the knife to the scene. He does not contend he was an aider and abettor whose liability arises from the felony murder rule or from the doctrine of natural and probable consequences. Rather, Abiel seeks to mitigate his involvement in the offense, given that he is the actual killer. Abiel’s brief does not raise any arguable issues on appeal from the denial of his petition for resentencing. This is not an additional review of the sufficiency of the evidence. We have reviewed the entire record consistent with Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel; has represented Abiel on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Abiel’s second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

3 HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12