People v. Enriquez

• Decision Date: 30 November 2021
• Docket Number: E075144
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFREDO VALENZUELA ENRIQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFREDO VALENZUELA ENRIQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

E075144

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

November 30, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No FSB057148, Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Cynthia Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Lynne McGinnis and Minh U. Le Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

MILLER, J.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 6, 2008, an information charged defendant and appellant Alfredo Valenzuela Enriquez with murder under Penal Code section 187, ^[1] subdivision (a) (count 1); second-degree robbery under section 211 (count 2); elder abuse resulting in death under section 368, subdivision (b)(1) (count 3); and receiving stolen property under section 496, subdivision (a) (count 4). The information also alleged that as to all counts, defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim under section 12022.7, subdivision (c); and as to count 3 caused great bodily injury to the victim under section 358, subdivision (b)(2)(B), and proximately caused the death of the victim under section 368, subdivision (b)(3)(B).

On March 18, 2010, the trial court granted the prosecution's move to amend the information to add count 5 for receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and counts 6 through 10 for theft from an elder (§ 368, subd. (d)). That same day, defendant pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter, the lesser included offense of count 1, and all remaining counts. Defendant also admitted the allegations for counts 2 through 4. In exchange for defendant's guilty plea, the parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of 25 years.

On April 15, 2010, the trial court granted the People's motion to dismiss the remaining allegations for counts 1 and 3. Thereafter, the court sentenced defendant to 25 years in prison, which included an 11-year term for voluntary manslaughter.

Pursuant to Proposition 47 and section 1170.18, on March 24, 2017, the trial court resentenced defendant on counts 4 and 5. Defendant's sentence was reduced to an aggregate 22-year sentence. Defendant's term for voluntary manslaughter was not affected.

On September 20, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95.

On November 19, 2019, the People filed a motion to strike defendant's petition. The People argued that Senate Bill No. 1437 was unconstitutional. Defendant opposed the motion to strike. On December 20, 2019, the trial court denied the motion to strike.

On January 22, 2020, the People filed an opposition to the section 1170.95 petition, arguing that defendant was ineligible for resentencing. Defendant filed a timely reply on February 6, 2020.

On February 25, 2020, at the hearing on the section 1170.95 petition, defendant was represented by retained counsel. After hearing arguments, the trial court found defendant ineligible for resentencing and denied defendant's petition.

On June 1, 2020, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause. On June 23, 2020, the trial court denied defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause.

B. FACTUAL HISTORY

According to the probation report, defendant and an accomplice went to a grocery store to find someone to rob. They noticed the victim, an 84-year old woman. Defendant and the accomplice "followed that person, the victim, to her home, where [the accomplice] took the purse and they drove away. After they had the purse, they drove to various gas stations to purchase gas and beverages and to see if the credit cards worked. Eventually, they went to a mall in Moreno Valley, where they bought new clothing with one of the credit cards they obtained from the victim's purse."

The victim was found by her neighbors, she had suffered trauma to her head. Based on the autopsy, the victim had fractured ribs on both sides of her body, and hemorrhaging to the left front of her neck. Her injuries were consistent with being struck on the head and falling backwards onto the back of her head. The victim also had heart disease, making her more likely to develop an arrythmia in stressful situations. The coroner concluded that the victim died from trauma and stress resulting from the robbery. The manner of death was ruled a homicide.

DISCUSSION

A. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S SECTION 1170.95 PETITION

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding that he was ineligible for resentencing because he pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter. The People argue that the trial court did not err because defendant "was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, not murder, and is therefore ineligible for resentencing relief under section 1170.95 as a matter of law."^[2] We agree with the People and find that the court properly denied defendant's petition.

1. THE APPEAL IS TIMELY

We first address the People's argument that defendant's "notice of appeal was not timely filed." The People contend that the appeal is untimely because the San Bernardino Superior Court presented the notice of appeal to our court on June 1, 2020, which was more than 60 days after the judgment, even with Covid-19 emergency extensions taken into account. The People argue that the notice was due by May 27, 2020.

For the purposes of determining whether a notice of appeal is timely filed, the controlling date is the date of receipt by the trial court, and not the date of forwarding the notice of to the appellate court. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.304(a)(1) and (c)(6).) Here, the trial court docket shows that defendant's notice of appeal was received on April 24, 2020. Moreover, the trial court provided both our court and Appellate Defenders, Inc. with a worksheet with the notice of appeal. The worksheet indicates that the trial court received the notice of appeal on April 24, 2021. Therefore, the notice was timely.

2. LEGAL BACKGROUND ON SECTION 1170.95

Next, we address whether the trial court properly denied defendant's section 1170.95 petition. For the reasons set forth post, we affirm the court's denial of the petition.

"The Legislature enacted Senate Bill [No.] 1437 [(Stats. 2018, ch. 1015)] to 'amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine . . . to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant of the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.' [Citation.] The bill amended sections 188 and 189, which pertain to the definition of malice and the degrees of murder." (People v. McClure (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1061.)

"The Legislature amended section 188 by adding subdivision (a)(3), which provides: 'Except as stated in subdivision (e) of Section 189, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.' [Citations.] And section 189, subdivision (e), now limits liability for murder to a person who was either the actual killer or, though not the actual killer, acted 'with intent to kill' and 'aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer' in the commission of first degree murder, or was 'a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.'" (People v. McClure, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 1061.)

"Pursuant to section 1170.95, an offender must file a petition in the sentencing court averring that: '(1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine[;] [¶] (2) The petitioner was convicted of first degree or second degree murder following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could be convicted for first degree or second degree murder[;] [¶] [and] (3) The petitioner could not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.' [Citations.] Additionally, the petition shall state '[w]hether the petitioner requests the appointment of counsel.' [Citation.] If a petition fails to comply with subdivision (b)(1), 'the court may deny the petition without prejudice to the filing of another petition.'" (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 959-960.) "Where the petition complies with subdivision (b)'s three requirements, then the court proceeds to subdivision (c) to assess whether the petitioner has made 'a prima facie showing' for relief." (Id. at p. 960.)

Section 1170.95, subdivision (c), "describe[s] a single prima facie showing." (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 962.) Further, "a trial court can rely on the record of conviction in determining whether that single prima facie showing is made." (Id. at p. 979.) The Supreme Court has explained that "the prima facie inquiry under subdivision (c) is limited. Like the analogous prima facie inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings,' "the court takes petitioner's factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual...