People v. Lopez CA2/1

Filed 7/19/24 P. v. Lopez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B329792

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA054272) v.

MICHAEL SANTILLAN LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Affirmed. Emry J. Allen, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Eric J. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Defendant Michael Santillan Lopez appeals from the denial of his resentencing petition under Penal Code1 section 1172.6. We affirm. Defendant’s jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine when it convicted him of attempted murder, and thus he is ineligible for relief under the plain language of the statute. Additionally, the record of conviction establishes the jury did not convict defendant under any theory of imputed malice.

BACKGROUND In 2008, a jury convicted defendant of willful, deliberate and premediated attempted murder of a peace officer, along with several nonhomicide offenses. The trial court sentenced defendant to 114 years to life. Edward Alcala, defendant’s codefendant, pleaded guilty before trial. In 2021, defendant petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95, since renumbered 1172.6. The resentencing court appointed counsel for defendant, received briefing, and held a hearing as to whether defendant made a prima facie showing for relief. At the hearing, the parties confirmed defendant’s jury had not been instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The resentencing court then denied the petition, finding that in the case of attempted murder, section 1172.6 applies only to convictions under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. In support, the court cited the statutory language and People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539 (Coley). Defendant timely appealed.