People v. Canela CA4/1 ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Filed 10/29/24 P. v. Canela 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D083568
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. SCD251838)
    IGNADO CANELA,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
    Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed.
    Ignacio Canela in pro. per., and Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment
    by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
    INTRODUCTION
    Ignado Canela appeals from an order denying his petition for
    resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6. His appellate counsel filed a
    brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 
    14 Cal.5th 216
     (Delgadillo), and
    Canela filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the issues raised in
    1        Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
    Canela’s supplemental brief and have independently reviewed the record.
    (Id. at p. 232.) We find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    In 2016, a jury convicted Canela of attempted premeditated murder of
    a peace officer (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664, subd. (e), count 1); felon in possession
    of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1), count 2); felon in possession of ammunition
    (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 3); carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850,
    subd. (a), count 5); possession of a burglary tool (§ 466, count 12); failure to
    appear (§ 1320.5, count 14); felony evasion (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a),
    count 4); transportation of a controlled substance (methamphetamine)
    (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count 6); possession for sale of a
    controlled substance (methamphetamine) (id., § 11378, count 7); possession of
    a controlled substance (hydrocodone) (id., § 11377, subd. (a), count 8);
    possession of a controlled substance (diazepam) (ibid., count 9); possession of
    a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (ibid., count 10); possession of a
    controlled substance (cocaine) (id., § 11350, subd. (a), count 11); and
    possession of narcotics paraphernalia (id., § 11364.1, subd. (a), count 13).
    The jury also found that as to count 1, Canela personally used and
    discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) &
    (d)); as to counts 4, 6, and 7, Canela was armed with a firearm (§ 12022,
    subd. (a)(1)); as to count 5, that the firearm being carried by Canela was
    stolen (§ 25850, subd. (c)(2)); as to counts 6, 7 and 10, that Canela had a
    qualifying prior narcotics conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2,
    subd. (c)); as to counts 1 to 9, and 14, that Canela committed the offenses
    while out of custody on bail (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)); and that Canela had four
    prison priors (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced Canela to prison
    for 14 years plus a consecutive term of 40 years to life.
    2
    This court affirmed the judgment in the direct appeal. (People v.
    Canela (Jan. 16, 2018, D070607) [nonpub. opn.].)
    In May 2023, Canela filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing,
    alleging he could no longer be convicted of attempted murder under the
    amendments to sections 188 and 189. After appointment of counsel, briefing
    by the parties, and a hearing, the superior court issued a written decision
    denying the petition. The court found Canela failed to state a prima facie
    claim for relief under section 1172.6, because the record of conviction
    established Canela was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder.
    DISCUSSION
    Canela’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and
    requesting this court proceed pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 
    14 Cal.5th 216
    .
    Counsel identifies the following issue to assist the court in its review: Does
    the record of conviction support the trial court’s conclusion that Canela is
    ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law?
    Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude the trial
    court properly denied Canela’s section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie
    stage. At Canela’s trial, the jury was instructed that attempted premeditated
    murder was the willful, deliberate, and intentional attempted killing of
    another person. The jury was further instructed that to find Canela guilty of
    attempted murder of a peace officer, the jury was required to find that when
    Canela attempted the murder, he knew or reasonably should have known
    that the victim was a peace officer. There were no codefendants at Canela’s
    trial, and no instructions were given for felony murder, natural and probable
    consequences, or imputed malice. The record of conviction thus establishes
    that in convicting Canela of attempted murder of a peace officer, the jury
    3
    determined he was the actual perpetrator. He is therefore ineligible for
    section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law. (See People v. Garcia (2022)
    
    82 Cal.App.5th 956
    , 969–971 [affirming denial of section 1172.6 resentencing
    where record of conviction “unequivocally establishes” defendant was the sole
    perpetrator].)
    Canela’s contentions in his supplemental brief are without merit. He
    claims the People are withholding DNA evidence and an alcohol analysis
    report that he requested during his section 1054.9 postconviction discovery
    proceedings. The purpose of a section 1172.6 proceeding, however, “ ‘is to
    give defendants the benefit of amended sections 188 and 189’ ” and “ ‘not to
    provide a do-over’ ” on unrelated issues regarding their conviction. (People v.
    Farfan (2021) 
    71 Cal.App.5th 942
    , 947.) The issues raised by Canela in his
    supplemental brief are thus outside the scope of his section 1172.6
    proceedings, and he fails to raise any meritorious arguments for appeal.
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying Canela’s petition for resentencing under
    section 1172.6 is affirmed.
    DO, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    IRION, Acting P. J.
    CASTILLO, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: D083568

Filed Date: 10/29/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/29/2024