People v. Mora CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D082338 · 2024-01-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD251068
Trial judge: Francis M. Devaney
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Joan K. Irion, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:20Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Joe Mora's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was ineligible as a matter of law because he was the actual shooter. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and People v. Delgadillo, finding no meritorious issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court found Mora was the actual perpetrator of the killing. Mora was the only person charged and was tried as the actual shooter. Accordingly, the court found Mora was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The trial court correctly applied the law by determining that a defendant who is the actual perpetrator of the killing is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed this determination after an independent review of the record, finding no error in the trial court's conclusion that Mora was the actual shooter based on the record of conviction.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues or explaining why none exist, and allows the court to independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel identifies no meritorious issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues or explaining why none exist, and allows the court to independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Delgadillo framework for independent review when counsel identifies no meritorious issues. The court properly affirms the trial court's denial of the section 1172.6 petition based on the finding that the defendant was the actual shooter, which renders him ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

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 San Diego Superior Court denied Joe Mora's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding from the record of conviction that he was the actual shooter in a 2015 first degree murder conviction (with a true finding that he personally discharged a firearm causing death) and therefore ineligible for relief as a matter of law. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Mora filed a one-page letter raising only an untried alibi claim, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause, on the ground that the record of conviction shows Mora was the actual killer and thus ineligible for relief as a matter of law. “The court found Mora was the actual perpetrator of the killing. Mora was the only person charged and was tried as the actual shooter. Accordingly, the court found Mora was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is unavailable to a defendant who was the actual killer; the jury's true finding that Mora personally discharged a firearm causing death, together with the fact that he was the sole defendant tried as the shooter, establishes actual-killer status from the record of conviction without factfinding, which Lewis permits at the prima facie stage. Mora's only appellate contention (an alibi not presented at trial) is outside the scope of a 1172.6 proceeding. The result is correct, though the opinion does not articulate the governing de novo standard or cite Lewis, and does not analyze the identified issue about the court's reference to the special-circumstance verdict (which would be relevant under Strong only if the denial rested on that finding rather than on actual-killer status).

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal is not required to conduct Wende review but may do so in its discretion; the defendant must be notified of the right to file a supplemental brief.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues on appeal.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must 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 consider the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding; the prima facie inquiry is limited and the petitioner's allegations are accepted as true unless refuted by the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because a defendant tried and convicted as the sole actual shooter, with a personal-discharge-causing-death finding, is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and Mora's alibi letter raises nothing cognizable in a resentencing proceeding. The opinion, however, is a bare Delgadillo affirmance that states no standard of review, does not cite Lewis on the limits of prima facie review, and does not explain why the trial court's reference to the special-circumstance verdict was harmless.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/23/24 P. v. Mora 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, D082338

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD251068)

JOE MORA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed. Joe Mora, in pro. per.; and Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2015, a jury convicted Joe Mora of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true an allegation Mora personally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury and that the killing was committed during the attempt to commit a burglary or robbery. The 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. court sentenced Mora to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murder with a consecutive term of 25 years-to-life for the firearm enhancement. Mora appealed and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Mora (Dec. 14, 2016, D069066) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, Mora filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court denied Mora’s petition by written order. The court found Mora failed to state a prima facie case for relief based on its review of the record of conviction. The court found Mora was the actual perpetrator of the killing. Mora was the only person charged and was tried as the actual shooter. Accordingly, the court found Mora was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The petition was denied without issuing an order to show cause or conducting an evidentiary hearing. Mora 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 issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error consistent with the practice under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Mora of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a one page letter requesting the court to consider evidence of alibi which was not presented in the trial. Mora’s brief does not discuss any issues relating to the denial of his petition for resentencing. The facts of the offense were discussed in our prior opinion. We will not repeat that discussion here.

2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in making such review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in referring to the jury verdict on the alleged special circumstances of murder during the commission or attempted commission of a robbery and a burglary. We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Mora on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Mora’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

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