P. v. Bustamante

Filed 1/26/21 P. v. Bustamante CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
LUIS BUSTAMANTE,
Defendant and Appellant.
B301333
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA292725-01)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Affirmed.
Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee and Stephanie A.
Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
In 2006, a jury found defendant Luis Bustamante, also
known as Luis Bustamonte, (defendant) guilty of attempted
premeditated murder and robbery for his role, with a fellow
criminal street gang member, in stealing a gold chain from a
victim and later shooting the same victim. (People v. Bustamonte
(Oct. 16. 2017, B195690 [nonpub. opn.].) More recently,
defendant filed a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for
resentencing in the trial court contending Senate Bill No. 1437’s
changes to California’s murder statutes should apply to his
attempted murder conviction. The trial court denied the petition.
The trial court’s ruling is correct. Senate Bill No. 1437,
including the petitioning procedure codified at Penal Code section
1170.95, authorizes relief only for defendants convicted of
murder, not attempted murder, and that limitation does not
contravene constitutional equal protection guarantees. (People v.
Love (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 273, 279, review granted Dec. 16,
2020, S265445; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 222-
225; People v. Dennis (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 838, 841, review
granted Jul. 29, 2020, S262184; People v. Munoz (2019) 39
Cal.App.5th 738, 753-769, review granted Nov. 26, 2019,
S258234; People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1103-1112,
review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S258175.) Additionally, there was
no error in declining to appoint counsel for defendant. (See
Dillon v. United States (2010) 560 U.S. 817, 828-829 [Sixth
Amendment inapplicable to sentence modification proceedings];
People v. Cornelius (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 54, 58, review granted
Mar. 18, 2020, S260410; People v. Anthony (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th
1102, 1156 [“[T]he retroactive relief . . . afforded by Senate Bill
1437 is not subject to Sixth Amendment analysis”]; see also In re
Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 780 [constitutional due process

-- 2 of 3 --

3
guarantees demand appointment of counsel in postconviction
proceedings “if a petition attacking the validity of a judgment
states a prima facie case leading to issuance of an order to show
cause”], italics added; People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th
320, 332, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493.)
The trial court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
MOOR, J.

-- 3 of 3 --