Automated Summary
Key Facts
In 2015, Ramon David Maldonado was convicted of first-degree murder with kidnapping and torture special circumstances. The court found three prior prison terms true, resulting in a life sentence without parole plus three years. Maldonado filed multiple petitions for resentencing under Penal Code sections 1170.95 and 1172.6 between 2020-2023, all of which were denied. The most recent denial in 2023 occurred because the jury's finding of a true torture special circumstance necessarily established his intent to kill, making him ineligible for resentencing under the amended murder law.
Issues
- Maldonado asserts the court made an error in jury instructions concerning unanimity on the murder theory. The appellate court found this unrelated to the resentencing petition's denial.
- Maldonado argues the cumulative effect of trial errors warrants reversal. The court rejected this as non-cognizable under the resentencing provisions.
- Maldonado claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial due to juror misconduct. The court held this contention was not cognizable under section 1172.6.
- Maldonado contends the court erred in instructing the jury on the kidnapping special circumstance allegation. The court found this issue unrelated to the denial of his section 1172.6 petition and thus not cognizable.
- Maldonado argues the evidence was insufficient to establish intent to kill or reckless indifference to human life. The court affirmed the denial of his petition, noting the jury's prior finding of a torture special circumstance necessarily included intent to kill.
- Maldonado claims the trial court erred in denying his Batson/Wheeler motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the issue unrelated to the section 1172.6 petition.
- Maldonado challenges the removal of a deliberating juror. The court deemed this issue non-cognizable under the applicable resentencing statute.
Holdings
The court affirmed the denial of Ramon David Maldonado's third petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, determining that his claims on appeal were unrelated to the trial court's ruling and thus not cognizable. The court emphasized that a resentencing petition under section 1172.6 does not provide an opportunity to raise errors from the original trial or challenge the conviction except as specifically allowed by the statute. Additionally, the court noted that Maldonado's contentions were previously raised and rejected in his prior direct appeal (People v. Gonzales, 2018 WL 3737940) and are therefore barred by the law of the case doctrine.
Remedies
The order filed July 12, 2023, denying the petition for resentencing is affirmed.
Legal Principles
The court applied the law of the case doctrine, deeming defendant's claims not cognizable under Penal Code section 1172.6 and barred by res judicata. Prior appellate decisions in People v. Gonzales and People v. Maldonado I established these contentions as previously rejected, preventing re-litigation in the current resentencing petition.
Precedent Name
- Farfan
- Lewis
- Gonzales
- Hernandez
- DeHuff
Cited Statute
Penal Code
Judge Name
- Gilbert
- Cody
- Baltodano
Passage Text
- Maldonado's contentions were also previously raised and rejected in Gonzales, supra, 2018 WL 3737940. Thus, his contentions are barred by the law of the case doctrine. Under that doctrine, 'when an appellate court "states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout [the case's] subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal... [Citation.] (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 246.) Our previous resolution of Maldonado's contentions in Gonzales is law of the case.
- Where an appellant's contention on appeal is 'wholly unrelated to the denial of [a] section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, from which the appeal is taken, the contention is 'not cognizable.' (People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1117.) A resentencing petition is not an opportunity to raise errors made at trial or challenge the original conviction, other than on the grounds allowed by section 1172.6. (Hernandez, at pp. 1122-1123; People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 ['The mere filing of a section [1172.6] petition does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error']; People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438 ['The statute does not permit a petitioner to establish eligibility on the basis of alleged trial error'].) Because none of his contentions are cognizable and Maldonado does not demonstrate error, we affirm the denial of Maldonado's third section 1172.6 petition.