People v. Orange CA4/1

Filed 8/30/23 P. v. Orange 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D081522
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN165993)
EUGENE ORANGE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed.
Eugene Orange, in pro. per.; and Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2004, a jury convicted Eugene Orange1 of first degree murder (Pen.
Code,2 § 187, subd. (a)) and found he personally used a deadly weapon (knife)
in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court found true
1 Appellant is also known as Eugene Kidd.
2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
two serious felony prior convictions and two strike priors. The court
sentenced Orange to an indeterminate term of 100 years to life, plus 11 years.
Orange appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed the judgment
in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Orange (Apr. 21, 2006, D045936).)
In 2022, Orange filed a form petition for resentencing under section
1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The court appointed counsel for
Orange, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a
hearing.
At the hearing to determine if Orange had stated a prima facie basis for
resentencing, the court concluded Orange was the sole perpetrator of this
offense. The record demonstrated the jury was not instructed on aiding and
abetting, natural and probable consequences or felony murder. The court
determined Orange was the actual killer and was therefore ineligible for
relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition without issuing an
order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.
Orange 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 conduct an independent review of
the record for error, similar to the process used in cases under People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Orange of his right to file
his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing his own brief on appeal.
We will discuss the supplemental brief later in this opinion.
The facts of the underlying offense are discussed in our previous
opinion. We will not repeat the discussion of the facts in the present opinion.
2
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and
asks the court to independently review the record for error. We have
reviewed the record in the same fashion as we would do in a Wende review.
We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues that might lead to
reversal of the order currently under review. The record supports the trial
court’s finding that Orange was the actual killer who acted alone in a willful,
premeditated murder with actual malice. Thus, nothing in this record would
bring Orange into the range of persons who might be eligible for relief under
section 1172.6.
We turn next to Orange’s supplemental brief. That submission does
not even address the order in this case. The focus of the supplemental brief is
the original trial. Orange contends the court abused its discretion in a
number of evidentiary rulings. He complains certain evidence was the
product of an unlawful search and seizure. None of those potential issues is
relevant to this appeal. The original judgment has been subject to direct
appeal and is now a final judgment. This is not an appeal from such
judgment.
As we have stated, our review of the record of this appeal has not
identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Orange
has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.
3
DISPOSITION
The order denying Orange’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
CASTILLO, J.
4