People v. Sanchez CA2/7

Filed 1/12/23 P. v. Sanchez CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN THE PEOPLE, B317733 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA118660-03) v. COLT HAWKEYE SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph R. Porras, Judge. Affirmed. Verna Wefald, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________ Colt Hawkeye Sanchez was convicted in 2013 of second degree murder with a true finding he had personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon during the commission of the crime. In January 2022, following an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied Sanchez’s petition for resentencing pursuant to 1 Penal Code section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95), finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Sanchez was the actual killer of Jose Ramos and, therefore, guilty of murder under California law as amended by Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437). Foregoing any argument that substantial evidence does not support the superior court’s order, Sanchez contends, because the court’s finding was based on a cold record—that is, without 2 observation of live testimony —we should review the ruling independently, as the Supreme Court did in People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510 (Vivar) when considering the superior court’s decision whether to vacate a conviction under section 1473.7, subdivision (a)(1). Using that standard, Sanchez argues, in light of the unreliability of the eyewitness testimony identifying him as the individual who inflicted the fatal stab 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Judge John A. Torribio, who retired in 2021, presided at Sanchez’s trial. Judge Joseph R. Porras heard Sanchez’s section 1172.6 petition. 2 wound, the evidence did not prove he was guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the reasoning in People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 302, which rejected the identical argument for application of an independent standard of review on appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition following an evidentiary hearing, and affirm the superior court’s order denying Sanchez’s petition. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Sanchez’s Murder Conviction and Appeal Sanchez and three codefendants were charged with the murder of Ramos, who was stabbed to death while attending a birthday party for his girlfriend at her house in Pico Rivera. The evidence at trial established that shortly after midnight the four youths, all members of the Pico Nuevo criminal …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals