People v. Keo CA4/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/8/24 P. v. Keo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D083243
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD200761)
CHANTY KEO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Yvonne E. Campos, Judge. Affirmed.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2007, a jury convicted Chanty Keo of attempted premeditated
murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and found Keo personally
discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).
The jury also convicted him of robbery (§ 211) and found other sentence
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
enhancements to be true. The court sentenced Keo to life in prison
plus 27 years.
Keo appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished
opinion. (People v. Keo (Aug. 25, 2008, D051784).)
In 2023, Keo filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.
The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of
conviction and jury instructions, and held a hearing. The court found Keo
was the sole participant in the crime and personally inflicted the injury to the
victim. The court found the jury was not instructed on any theory of liability
that was disapproved by section 1172.6. Accordingly, the court found Keo
was ineligible for relief and denied the petition without first issuing an order
to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.
Keo 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 issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for
error. We notified Keo that he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has
not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of the offenses were discussed in our original appeal in this
case. We will not repeat them here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and
asks the court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
Although Keo has not submitted any briefing to support his appeal, we have
independently reviewed the record for error. Our review has not identified
2
any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel
has represented Keo on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Keo’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6
is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
IRION, J.
KELETY, J.
3