P. v. Anaya

Filed 12/30/25
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RUFINO ANAYA,
Defendant and Appellant.
2d Crim. No. B338242
(Super. Ct. No. PA089375)
(Los Angeles County)
Can a trial court’s remarks at the conclusion of a bench
trial support the prima facie denial of a Penal Code1 section
1172.6 petition? We conclude the answer is yes and, accordingly,
will affirm the order denying Rufino Anaya’s section 1172.6
petition. To the extent appellant also appealed the trial court’s
decision on his section 1172.1 request, we will dismiss that
portion of the appeal.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Appellant filed a form petition citing section 1170.95. Effective
June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 as
section 1172.6, without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58,
§ 10.) We refer to the statute as section 1172.6 throughout.

-- 1 of 8 --

2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
“On January 25, 2017, appellant and his girlfriend K.O. got
into an argument in a store parking lot. Appellant broke the
windshield of K.O.’s car and choked her with one hand as he held
a knife in the other hand. K.O. ran away and appellant chased
her through the parking lot while holding the knife. Appellant
also threatened to kill K.O. and her son.
“K.O. and appellant ended their relationship in July 2017.
On August 10, appellant told K.O. in text messages ‘[y]ou will see
what I’m capable of doing . . . . I don’t care if I die. I’m going to
get you.’
“The following night, K.O.’s friend and coworker Daniel
Martinez drove her to her job at a gas station. Appellant knew
K.O. worked there and was aware of her schedule. When K.O.
opened the door to get out of Martinez’s vehicle, appellant
appeared ‘out of nowhere,’ grabbed her by the hair with one hand,
and dragged her approximately 35 to 40 feet while holding a
knife in his other hand. Martinez intervened and wrestled with
appellant, thereby freeing K.O. Appellant turned his attack on
Martinez and stabbed him multiple times in the chest and arms
before running away.”
Appellant was convicted in a court trial of the attempted
murder of Martinez (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664; count 1), two counts of
assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a); counts 3 and 4),
2 We grant respondent’s unopposed request for judicial
notice of the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts in appellant’s prior
appeal, People v. Anaya, 2d Crim. No. B291906. (Evid. Code, §§
452, 459.) We quote from this court’s unpublished opinion in
People v. Anaya (Aug. 20, 2019, B291906) [nonpub. opn.]. We
provide these facts for background purposes and do not rely on
them to determine whether the petition was properly denied.
(People v. Rushing (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1025, 1028, fn. 2.)

-- 2 of 8 --

3
stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a); count 5), and battery against a person
with whom he had a dating relationship (§ 243, subd. (e)(1); count
6 lesser included offense). The court acquitted appellant of the
attempted murder of K.O. (count 2). It found true the allegation
appellant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon in the
commission of count 1 (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). As to counts 1 and
3, the court found appellant personally inflicted great bodily
injury upon Martinez (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
The court found appellant suffered a prior strike and
serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a)-(j), 1170.12.) It
sentenced him to 25 years and eight months in prison. On direct
appeal, we ordered the eight-month sentence on count 5 stayed
under section 654 and affirmed the judgment as modified.
(People v. Anaya, supra, B291906.)
In 2023, appellant filed a form petition for resentencing
under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, and the
People filed an opposition. At the hearing, appellant’s counsel
briefly argued that appellant had made a prima facie case for
relief, “as there is nothing in the record of conviction that would
disqualify him.”
The court denied the petition: “Well, I know at this stage,
the court cannot engage in fact-finding. I did preside over the
court trial, however. And in this case, defendant was the only
charged defendant in this case. He was found guilty of counts 1,
3, 4, and 5. Count 1 being the attempted murder, along with
personal infliction of great bodily injury pursuant to 12022.7.
Based on all of that, the court does not find a prima facie case has
been established and the petition is denied.”
Appellant also filed a request for recall of sentence and
resentencing pursuant to section 1172.1. In a minute order, the
court noted it was not required to respond and stated it “will take
no further action . . . .”

-- 3 of 8 --

4
DISCUSSION
Legal Principles
“Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018
Reg. Sess.) . . . significantly limited the scope of the felony-
murder rule and eliminated liability for murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine . . . .” (People v.
Guiffreda (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 112, 122; Stats. 2018, ch. 2015,
§§ 1-3.) Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) extended
relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder, but only if
their convictions were “based on the natural and probable
consequences doctrine.” (People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th
539, 548; Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2; § 1172.6, subd. (a).) The
natural and probable consequences doctrine “is a theory of
vicarious liability” that requires a second participant. (People v.
Saavedra (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 444, 448; People v. Love (2025)
107 Cal.App.5th 1280, 1288.) Section 1172.6 does not apply to
defendants convicted of attempted murder as direct perpetrators.
(See People v. Cortes (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 198, 204.)
Section 1172.6 sets forth the procedure for defendants
convicted under prior law to petition for relief. (§ 1172.6.) The
process “begins with a facially valid petition that entitles
petitioner to counsel, continues with asking whether petitioner
has made a prima facie case for relief, and, if so, proceeds to an
evidentiary hearing on the ultimate question of whether
petitioner should be resentenced.” (People v. Patton (2025) 17
Cal.5th 549, 562 (Patton); § 1172.6, subds. (a)-(d).)
The prima facie inquiry is “‘limited.’” (Patton, supra, 17
Cal.5th at p. 562.) As in the analogous habeas corpus context,
“‘“‘the court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and
makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the
petitioner would be entitled to relief if [those] factual allegations

-- 4 of 8 --

5
were proved. If so, the court must issue an order to show
cause.’”’” (Id. at p. 563.)
“‘“However, if the record, including the court’s own
documents, ‘contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in the
petition,’ then ‘the court is justified in making a credibility
determination adverse to the petitioner.’”’” (Patton, supra, 17
Cal.5th at p. 563.) The Court has cautioned that “‘[i]n reviewing
any part of the record of conviction at this preliminary juncture, a
trial court should not engage in “factfinding involving the
weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.”’” (Ibid.) “‘If
the petition and record in the case establish conclusively that the
defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the
petition.’” (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 450 (Curiel).)
“We review de novo a trial court’s denial of a section 1172.6
petition at the prima facie stage.” (People v. Bodely (2023) 95
Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200.)
Analysis
The record of conviction conclusively establishes that
appellant is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief. The trial court
properly denied the petition at the prima facie stage.
Ordinarily, we “look to the jury’s verdicts, and the factual
findings they necessarily reflect, to determine whether the record
of conviction refutes the factual allegations” in a section 1172.6
petition. (Curiel, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 465.) This case is more
straightforward because the court explained its attempted
murder finding. (See People v. Lopez (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 566,
572, fn. 5 [trial transcript part of the record of conviction].)
The parties’ arguments framed the court’s remarks.
During argument, neither party invoked the natural and
probable consequences doctrine. The prosecutor argued
appellant stabbed Martinez with the intent to kill. Defense
counsel acknowledged there was “ample evidence” appellant

-- 5 of 8 --

6
stabbed Martinez multiple times. Counsel argued lack of intent
to kill and self-defense.
The court plainly rejected both arguments. The court
determined appellant “inflicted” stab wounds on Martinez and
stated that “based on the totality of the facts, I do think that
there was an intent to kill.” Consistent with these
determinations, the court found true allegations appellant
personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon and personally
inflicted great bodily injury upon Martinez. Appellant was
convicted of attempted murder as the direct perpetrator who
acted with intent to kill, not based on the natural and probable
consequences doctrine or any other theory of vicarious liability.
His case presents the archetypal “‘clearly meritless petition[]’”
the prima facie stage properly “screen[s] out.” (Patton, supra, 17
Cal.5th at p. 566.)
Appellant contends reliance upon the trial court’s
description of its attempted murder finding involves a
consideration of credibility and weighing of evidence. We
disagree. The trial court evaluated credibility and weighed
evidence at appellant’s court trial. Reliance on the trial court’s
remarks, which elucidate its underlying factual determinations,
does not itself constitute factfinding at the prima facie stage.
We recognize courts have held that “in a criminal bench
trial, the trial court is not required to provide a statement of
decision and that any explanation of his or her decision a trial
judge provides is not part of the record on appeal.” (People v.
Tessman (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1302; see also People v.
Grana (1934) 1 Cal.2d 565, 570.) Rather than defining the scope
of the record of conviction in a section 1172.6 case, these
authorities are better understood as applying the principle that
“‘where a judge’s statements as a whole disclose a correct concept
of the law and its application, no secondary remarks should be

-- 6 of 8 --

7
deemed to have impeached his determination.’” (People v. Ortiz
(1964) 61 Cal.2d 249, 253.) This principle has no application in
the section 1172.6 prima facie context, where the court
evaluating the petition is not impeaching the trial court’s
determination.
Appellant argues the trial court based its denial on the
insufficient “procedural findings that appellant was the only
charged defendant and that he was found guilty of the attempted
murder and personal infliction of the great bodily injury
enhancement.” We affirm if the trial court’s ruling was correct on
any ground. (People v. Camacho (2022) 14 Cal.5th 77, 123.)
Appellant is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.
Thus, regardless of its reasoning, the trial court properly denied
the petition at the prima facie stage.
Finally, to the extent appellant appealed the trial court’s
decision on his section 1172.1 request, that “decision is not an
appealable order . . . .” (People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th
1040, 1045.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying the section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.
To the extent appellant appealed the court’s decision on his
section 1172.1 request, that portion of the appeal is dismissed.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.
CODY, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P. J. BALTODANO, J.

-- 7 of 8 --

8
Hayden A. Zacky, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
James Koester, 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, Idan Ivri and Scott A. Taryle,
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

-- 8 of 8 --