Filed 6/1/23 P. v. Valle CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F083418 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF137858B) v. HECTOR RUBEN VALLE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge. Steven A. Torres, 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, Christopher J. Rench and Cameron M. Goodman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- INTRODUCTION In 2013, a jury convicted defendant Hector Ruben Valle of second degree murder of Cipriano Maldonado (Pen. Code, § 187; count 1), assault with a deadly weapon of A.Z. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 3) and found true gang enhancements alleged as to counts 1 and 2 (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) based on his participation in a gang fight during which Maldonado was stabbed and killed. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The jury could not reach a verdict on the allegation defendant personally used a knife during the commission of the murder or on the allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily injury upon A.Z., and the court dismissed those allegations. Codefendant Saul Gonzalez was acquitted on all three counts. In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing in light of the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437). The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Defendant previously appealed, challenging the denial of his petition on the grounds the record of conviction did not establish he was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Our court agreed, reversed the court’s order denying the petition, and remanded with directions for the court to issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing.1 On October 7, 2021, after holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition. Defendant now challenges the denial of his petition after the evidentiary hearing, arguing the record does not establish the court applied the correct standard of review at the evidentiary hearing and the evidence was insufficient to establish he was ineligible for resentencing. Relatedly, he asserts we should review the court’s factual findings de novo. We reject defendant’s contentions and affirm the order denying the petition. 1Defendant filed a motion requesting we take judicial notice of our prior two unpublished decisions in this matter, People v. Valle (Feb. 14, 2017, F069356) [2017 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 1048; 2017 WL 589109] and People v. Valle (June 15, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals