People v. Orozco CA5 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/17/24 P. v. Orozco CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F085737
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. BF173956A)
v.
ISAAC MANUEL OROZCO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R.
Brehmer, Judge.
Jake Stebner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Lewis A.
Martinez, and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Isaac Manuel Orozco was convicted of aggravated mayhem and related crimes. In
a prior appeal, we rejected his challenges to the convictions, but did vacate his sentence
* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.
and remand the matter for resentencing. (People v. Orozco (June 28, 2022, F079844)
[nonpub. opn.] (Orozco).)
On appeal after resentencing, Orozco claims his trial attorney was ineffective for
failing to present an intoxication defense during his trial. The People contend “this claim
is outside the limited scope of issues that could properly be raised on appeal following
remand for resentencing only.” We agree with the People.
BACKGROUND
Charges
“The Kern County District Attorney charged Orozco with committing five crimes:
aggravated mayhem (Pen. Code,1 § 205; Count 1), first degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (a);
Count 2), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); Counts 3 & 4), and
attempted aggravated mayhem (§§ 664 & 205; Count 5). The aggravated mayhem charge
included an allegation Orozco was armed with a ‘deadly or dangerous’ weapon (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1)).” (Orozco, supra, F079844.)
Prior Appeal
In the prior appeal, we rejected Orozco’s argument the evidence failed to prove
burglary. (Orozco, supra, F079844.) We also vacated the sentence and directed the trial
court to resentence Orozco in accord with then-newly enacted laws. (Ibid.)
Resentencing
At the resentencing hearing, Orozco’s trial counsel sought leniency because the
crime “was fueled by intoxication ….” Counsel explained intoxication was “not
presented at trial because it’s not a defense … and not necessarily relevant as to …
intent ….” The People responded “there [was] absolutely no evidence of intoxication in
the trial record or the sentencing record.” Orozco’s counsel replied the charged crimes
were “general intent crimes,” not “specific intent crimes” and if they were specific intent
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2.
crimes, “the defense would have presented evidence of intoxication ….” The trial court
then sentenced Orozco to serve 15 years to life in prison.
DISCUSSION
“In an appeal following a limited remand, the scope of the issues before the court
is determined by the remand order.” (People v. Murphy (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 392, 396-
397.) We see no reason to depart from this rule in this case and consider, for the first
time, Orozco’s claim his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient.
We previously returned this matter to the trial court to resentence Orozco. It did.
That resentencing did not expand the scope of issues before this court.
Nonetheless, Orozco is not without a remedy. He may raise his ineffective
assistance argument via habeas corpus petition in the trial court.2 (See People v.
Sepulveda (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 291, 301.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
2 We take no position on whether Orozco’s trial counsel misunderstood the law or
whether such misunderstanding would establish ineffective assistance. Neither do we
advocate for or against Orozco pursuing a habeas corpus petition.
3.