Opinion
D082548
04-24-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE CLIFTON HILL, Defendant and Appellant.
Jesse Clifton Hill, in pro. per.; and Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, No. RIF140227 John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed.
Jesse Clifton Hill, in pro. per.; and Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, ACTING P. J.
In July 2008, a jury found Jesse Clifton Hill guilty of three counts of willful, deliberate premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664,187, subd. (a)) and one count of shooting into an occupied vehicle (§ 246). The jury also found Hill had personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Hill was sentenced to a total term of 55 years to life.
Hill's first name is spelled differently throughout the record (either Jessie or Jesse). His appellate counsel represents that Jesse is the correct spelling of Hill's first name. We thus spell Hill's first name as "Jesse" in this opinion.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Hill appealed and this court affirmed the convictions in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Hill (Mar. 11, 2010, D055121).) The court struck one of the firearm enhancements reducing the sentence to 30 years to life.
In 2023, Hill filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel and reviewed the record of conviction. The court did not receive briefing from the People but did hold a hearing in which both sides reviewed and discussed the jury instructions that were given at trial. The parties agreed the jury was given standard aiding and abetting instructions as to the target offense. No instruction was given on felony murder or liability based on natural and probable consequences. The court found Hill had not made prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Hill filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error in the same manner as we would do if this case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We informed Hill he could file his own brief on appeal.
Hill has filed a letter in response to our notice. He requests a fairer and more compassionate sentence. He attached a transcript of his 2008 sentencing hearing. Hill does not discuss any issues regarding the order denying his petition under section 1172.6. Thus, Hill has not raised any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
The facts of the offenses were fully discussed in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this case: Whether the trial court erred by denying the petition without first receiving written briefing from the People.
We have reviewed the record as requested. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Hill on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Hill's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. KELETY, J.