People v. Soto CA6 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/29/24 P. v. Soto CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, H051660
(Monterey County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 17CR001640)
v.
JUAN ALVAREZ SOTO,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT1
Defendant Juan Alvarez Soto appeals an order denying his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, pursuant to which a person convicted of
felony murder, murder, or manslaughter under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine may seek to have his conviction vacated in specified circumstances.2
On appeal, Soto’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and Soto filed a supplemental letter brief on his own
behalf. Having reviewed Soto’s letter brief, we conclude he has failed to raise an
arguable issue on appeal, and we therefore affirm the order.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2018, Soto pleaded no contest to two felony violations of section 192,
subdivision (a), voluntary manslaughter (Counts 3 and 4). Soto also admitted
enhancements as to count 3, based on allegations that the offense was committed for the
1
Before Wilson, J., Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P. J., and Danner, J.
2
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)), and with the use of a firearm
(§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) Soto indicated, and the trial court found, that the preliminary
hearing transcript provided the factual basis for his plea. Pursuant to the terms of the plea
agreement, the trial court sentenced Soto to a total of 33 years, dismissing the remaining
counts and enhancements.
On October 11, 2022, Soto submitted a letter to the trial court, in which he raised
“questions and concerns regarding the 1170(d) and new 1170.03 recall for resentencing,”
stated that he had “sent a petition/motion for sentence modification for SB 1437 / SB
775,” and “request[ed] the petition for the recall of resentence.”3 The trial court
appointed counsel for Soto and set a hearing for reconsideration of Soto’s sentence. The
People filed a response to Soto’s petition, in which they conceded the prima facie case
and requested that the court set an evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1172.6.4
3
“Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–
2018 Reg. Sess.) ‘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 in
the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.’ (Stats. 2018,
ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)” (People v. Porter (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 644, 649 (Porter).)
Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.; Stats. 2021, ch. 551) subsequently clarified
that the relief afforded by these amendments is also available to people convicted of
manslaughter under a theory of felony murder, by making additional amendments to what
is now section 1172.6. (Porter, supra, at pp. 651–652.)
4
“When the trial court receives a petition containing the necessary declaration and
other required information, the court must evaluate the petition ‘to determine whether the
petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief.’ ” (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th
698, 708 (Strong), quoting § 1172.6, subd. (c); citing People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th
952.) “If the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the defendant is
ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition.” (Strong, supra, at p. 708,
citing § 1172.6, subd. (c); Lewis, supra, at pp. 970–972.) “If, instead, the defendant has
made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, ‘the court shall issue an order to
show cause.’ ” (Strong, supra, at p. 708, quoting § 1172.6, subd. (c).) The court must
then hold an evidentiary hearing “at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving,
(continued)
2
The People submitted a brief in advance of the evidentiary hearing, in which they
recited the facts of the case, identified witnesses and exhibits to be presented, and made
various motions in limine. The evidentiary hearing was then held on September 15 and
October 20, 2023, at which numerous witnesses testified for both the People and Soto.
Following the hearing, the People submitted a brief in which they argued that
“[t]he evidence before the court, including the record of conviction, shows that [Soto]
could ‘presently be convicted’ of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] In this
instance, [Soto’s] actions in the charged shooting betrays express malice and implied
malice. [Citation.]”
Soto submitted a brief as well, in which he argued that the People had failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was ineligible for resentencing. There was no
evidence, he argued, except generalized gang evidence, to show what his intentions and
motivations were, and therefore nothing to establish that he acted with the requisite
malice.
On December 8, 2023, the trial court denied Soto’s petition. The court found that
Soto was the driver of a vehicle that dropped off and picked up another individual who
shot and killed two people in a gang-related incident. Further, the evidence showed that
Soto “was actually part of planning and participating, aiding and abetting the shooter in
this event,” and that Soto “knew what the shooter was going to do [and] had the same
intention as the shooter,” which was “to go and shoot the [Norteños] who were intruding
into the Sureño territory….” Accordingly, the court found that Soto “can be held
‘beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or attempted murder,’
under state law as amended by Senate Bill 1437. (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).) ‘A finding that
there is substantial evidence to support a conviction for murder, attempted murder, or
manslaughter is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is
ineligible for resentencing.’ [Citation.] ‘If the prosecution fails to sustain its burden of
proof, the prior conviction, and any allegations and enhancements attached to the
conviction, shall be vacated and the petitioner shall be resentenced on the remaining
charges. [Citation.]’ ” (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 709.)
3
responsible as an aider and abettor, or under the theory of implied malice murder,” and
further found beyond a reasonable doubt that he could be convicted under the current
law.
Soto filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at pages 231–232. We notified Soto that he could file a supplemental brief on his own
behalf, and that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. (Id.
at p. 232.) Soto timely filed a supplemental letter.
II. DISCUSSION
In his supplemental letter, Soto states that he did not “plea to a stipulation of
malice aforethought.” He argues that, while the record clearly shows he was the driver of
the vehicle, there is nothing but circumstantial evidence showing he had intent or
knowledge of the shooter’s intentions.
The letter fails to raise an arguable issue on appeal. An issue is arguable if it has a
reasonable potential for success, and, if resolved favorably for the appellant, the result
will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981)
123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
The trial court here held an evidentiary hearing where numerous witnesses
testified, and evidence of the crime was admitted. Before reaching its decision, the trial
court provided a detailed and thorough statement setting forth the relevant evidence
presented by the People and Soto. Based on this evidence, the court found beyond a
reasonable doubt that Soto can be held responsible as an aider and abettor under the
current law of implied malice.
“ ‘Among the factors which may be considered in making the determination of
aiding and abetting are: presence at the scene of the crime, companionship, and conduct
before and after the offense.’ ” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1054, quoting
In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094–1095.) “[T]he test is whether the
4
accused in any way, directly or indirectly, aided the perpetrator by acts or encouraged
him by words or gestures.” (People v. Villa (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 128, 134.)
“Evidence of a defendant’s state of mind is almost inevitably circumstantial, but
circumstantial evidence is as sufficient as direct evidence to support a conviction.”
(People v. Bloom (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1194, 1208; see also, People v. Smith (1998) 64
Cal.App.4th 1458, 1469 [intent is generally proved by the act and surrounding
circumstances].)
On appeal, we must defer to the trial court’s factfinding, and we review the trial
court’s findings for substantial evidence. (People v. Mitchell (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 575,
591 (Mitchell).) Soto fails to explain why the trial court’s findings were erroneous or
why we should not defer to those findings. Nor does Soto suggest another valid basis for
this court to question whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings.
On appeal, we are required to accept factual inferences supported by substantial
evidence made by the trial court and to presume that the facts support the judgment.
(Mitchell, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 591.) We must also presume that the court’s
judgment was correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.
(People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) Because Soto has failed to
raise an arguable issue in his supplemental letter, we must affirm the trial court’s order.
(People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503–504.)
III. DISPOSITION
The order denying the section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.
5