People v. Vargas CA4/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/23/24 P. v. Vargas 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D083605
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS286199)
RAUL B. VARGAS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
Raul B. Vargas, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2017, a jury convicted Raul B. Vargas of second-degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)), and found Vargas used a deadly weapon in the
commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court sentenced Vargas
to an indeterminate term of 45 years to life in prison, plus a one-year
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
determinate term. Vargas appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in
an unpublished opinion. (People v. Vargas (Nov. 28, 2018, D073025).)
In March 2023, Vargas filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the
record of conviction, and held a hearing
The trial court noted there were no jury instructions on natural and
probable consequences or felony murder. The court concluded that under the
instructions the jury would have to find Vargas was the actual killer. The
court determined Vargas had not established a prima facie case for relief
under the statute and therefore dismissed the petition.
Vargas 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 issue for reversal on appeal.
We offered Vargas the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He
has responded by filing a supplemental brief. In his brief, Vargas complains
about the trial counsel. He argues trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance at the original trial. Vargas also argues various witnesses lied at
trial. Vargas does not address any argument to the validity of the order
denying his petition for resentencing. The supplemental brief does not raise
any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief that
does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
To comply with the mandates of Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738(Anders), counsel does identify one possible issue which was considered in
2
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred
in failing to find Vargas had established a prima facie case for relief.
We have independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has
not disclosed any potentially meritorious issue for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Vargas on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Vargas’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
3