People v. Pala CA4/3 ( 2023 )

Filed 8/8/23 P. v. Pala CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G062058
v. (Super. Ct. No. 15CF1719)
URIEL JESUS PALA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Lance P. Jensen, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Allen G. Weinberg and Allen G. Weinberg, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Uriel Jesus Pala appeals the summary denial of his petition for resentencing
under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 His court-appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221–222 (Delgadillo). This court notified
Pala that he had 30 days to file any supplemental brief deemed necessary, or the matter
may be dismissed as abandoned. (Ibid.) None was filed. In the interests of justice, we
have examined the record on appeal and find no arguable error that could result in a
disposition more favorable to Pala. (Id. at p. 232.) We thus affirm.
FACTS
A summary of the underlying facts is taken from this court’s unpublished
opinion, People v. Hernandez and Pala (G054544, Nov. 28, 2018) [nonpub. opn.] (first
appeal), for background purposes. One night in 2015, Martin F. and two other
pedestrians were walking down the street in Santa Ana. A sedan pulled out from a
nearby side street, and as it passed Martin, its lights turned off. The sedan stopped and
two or three men exited the car. Seconds later, the two pedestrians ran past Martin.
Martin heard “firecrackers,” but someone else heard gunshots. Martin fell to the ground;
he had been shot once in the buttock. Shortly afterwards, law enforcement found the
sedan, with Pala alone inside. It was parked at an apartment complex where Jose
Hernandez lived and was found. Hernandez, who owned the sedan, was later identified
as the driver.
Pala was charged with attempted premediated murder (§ 187, subd. (a),
664, subd. (a); counts 1–3 [John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Martin, respectively]), assault
with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 4–6 [same victims, respectively]), and battery
with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 7 [Martin]). The information also
alleged several enhancements: criminal street gang activity for all counts (§ 186.22,
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2
subd. (b)); gang member vicarious discharge of firearm for counts 1–3 (§ 12022.53,
subds. (c), (e)(1)); gang member vicarious discharge of firearm causing great bodily
injury for count 3 (§ 12022.53, subds (d), (e)(1)); and great bodily injury for counts 3 and
6 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
A jury convicted Pala on all counts except count 3 (attempted murder of
Martin). As to counts 1–2, the jury found the attempted murders were committed
willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation (§ 664, subd. (a)). As to all convicted
counts, the jury found all enhancements true except the great bodily enhancement, which
was dismissed before closing argument. The trial court sentenced Pala on count 1 to state
prison for a total determinate term of 29 years plus a consecutive indeterminate term of 7
years to life. The same sentence was imposed for count 2 and was to run concurrently
with count 1. 2
In his first appeal, this court remanded for resentencing for the trial court to
exercise its discretion whether to strike the firearm enhancements, ordered the sentences
for counts 1–2 modified to reflect life terms “with the possibility of parole,” and directed
the superior court clerk to correct the abstract of judgment. In all other respects, the
judgment was affirmed. The same aggregate term was imposed at the resentencing
hearing, and the abstract of judgment was amended as directed.
In 2022, Pala petitioned for resentencing under section 1170.95, and
counsel was appointed for him. The People filed a response, arguing the petition should
be denied. By the time the trial court ruled on the petition, section 1170.95 had been
renumbered to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) At
the prima facie hearing, the court summarily denied the petition on the ground Pala was
2 Codefendant Hernandez was charged with the same counts and
enhancements, and received the same verdicts, as Pala. Hernandez also unsuccessfully
petitioned for resentencing under section 1172.6 and has filed a separate appeal (case no.
G061921).
3
convicted of attempted murder under a direct aiding-and-abetting theory, which required
findings that he, like the shooter, acted with the intent to kill.
DISCUSSION
Because no death occurred here, we limit our discussion of section 1172.6
to attempted murder. To obtain relief under section 1172.6, Pala had to show he was
prosecuted for and convicted of “attempted murder under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); People v. Saibu (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th
709, 747.) But if the record of conviction demonstrates a petitioner is ineligible for relief
as a matter of law, a court may summarily deny the petition. (People v. Lewis (2021)
11 Cal.5th 952, 970–972.)
Here, the charging document, jury instructions, and verdicts show Pala was
not prosecuted or convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. The first amended information alleges Pala “did unlawfully, and
with the specific intent to kill, attempt to murder” the victims. It also alleges he did so
“willfully, deliberately and with premeditation[.]” There is no mention of “natural and
probable consequences.” The jury was instructed on the general principles of aiding and
abetting (CALCRIM No. 400), direct aiding and abetting intended crimes (CALCRIM
No. 401), the elements of attempted murder (CALCRIM No. 600), and the additional
allegation that the attempted murders were committed with deliberation and
premeditation (CALCRIM No. 601). The trial court did not instruct on aiding and
abetting based upon natural and probable consequences (CALCRIM Nos. 402–403).
And as reflected in the verdict forms for counts 1–2, the jury found that Pala was guilty
of attempted premeditated murder and that he—while not the shooter—was a “principal”
of the crime. “‘[T]o be guilty of attempted murder as an aider and abettor, a person must
give aid or encouragement with knowledge of the direct perpetrator’s intent to kill and
with the purpose of facilitating the direct perpetrator’s accomplishment of the intended
killing—which means that the person guilty of attempted murder as an aider and abettor
4
must intend to kill.’[Citation.]” (People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1054.) The
jury thus necessarily found that Pala shared the shooter’s criminal purpose: to kill the two
unidentified victims. This finding is further bolstered by the jury’s not-guilty finding on
count 3, the attempted murder of Martin. Despite the fact Martin had been shot, the jury
was able to distinguish between the intended victims and the innocent bystander.
Because the record of conviction establishes Pala was convicted of
attempted murder as a direct aider and abettor, he is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as
a matter of law. (See People v. Estrada (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 941, 945 [petitioner
convicted of first-degree murder as aider and abettor with intent to kill ineligible for
section 1172.6 relief].) We therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying him
postjudgment relief.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order is affirmed.
DELANEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
GOETHALS, J.
5