People v. Villaneda CA4/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Villaneda CA4/2
See Dissenting Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082471
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF107908)
ALFRED VILLANEDA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge.
(Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.
Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
On April 13, 2004, a jury found defendant and appellant Alfred Villaneda guilty of
first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1),1 during which he discharged a
firearm proximately causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and five counts of felony
preventing/dissuading a witness by threats (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1), counts 2-6).2 Defendant
thereafter admitted having suffered four prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The
court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life, plus 19 years of imprisonment. (Villaneda,
supra, E036670.)
Defendant appealed. This court reversed and remanded the matter for
resentencing, but otherwise affirmed the judgment. On remand, the court resentenced
defendant 50 years to life, plus 10 years of imprisonment.3 (Villaneda, supra, E036670.)
On May 30, 2023, defendant submitted a request for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.6. After a hearing on October 20, 2023, at which defendant was represented
by counsel, the trial court denied the petition.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case,
requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error,
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
stated.
2 We take judicial notice of our prior opinion from defendant’s appeal from the
original judgment (People v. Villaneda (Mar. 16, 2006, E036670) [nonpub. opn.]). (Evid.
Code, § 459.)
3 On November 13, 2023, the court struck defendant’s prior prison term
enhancements, resentencing defendant to 50 years to life, plus six years of imprisonment.
2
and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in determining
defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We
noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed
one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the
record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the
appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
I concur:
RAPHAEL
J.
3
[People v. Villaneda, E082471]
RAMIREZ, P. J., Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Our Supreme Court has afforded reviewing courts
discretion with respect to the disposition of postconviction appeals in which appointed
appellate counsel has filed a no-issues brief and defendant did not file a supplemental
brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) For the reasons set forth in
People v. Griffin (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 329, 333-337, I would exercise that discretion to
conduct an independent review of the record.
RAMIREZ
P. J.
4