People v. Buggs CA4/1

Filed 10/15/24 P. v. Buggs CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082927

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD252423)

DAVID BRIAN BUGGS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Jill Kent, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, James Toohey, and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. David Brian Buggs, who pleaded guilty to second degree murder, appeals an order denying at the prima facie stage his second petition for resentencing under what is now Penal Code section 1172.6. Buggs claims the trial court erred in dismissing the petition without holding an evidentiary

hearing because (1) collateral estoppel does not bar relief, as the law has changed since Buggs’ first resentencing petition, (2) the record of conviction does not establish Buggs was the actual killer as a matter of law, and (3) the trial court engaged in impermissible factfinding at the prima facie stage. The People concede the trial court erred by denying the petition, but on the grounds that (1) collateral estoppel does not apply and (2) the record of conviction does not establish Buggs’ ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law. We accept the People’s concession, reverse and remand with directions. I. Buggs and one other codefendant were each charged with murder under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a). Buggs, alone, was alleged to have used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife, during the commission and attempted commission of the offense. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) A special circumstance in the informatoin alleged Buggs committed the murder while engaged in the commission and attempted commission of a robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) Buggs pleaded guilty to second degree murder and the weapon enhancement. Specifically, he admitted he “unlawfully murdered” the victim and “personally used a dangerous weapon, a knife, in the commission of the offense.” Those admitted charges, along with an admitted prior strike conviction, led to a total prison term of 31 years to life. Effective January 2019, the Legislature amended the laws on murder to eliminate murder based on theories of imputed malice “‘to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.’” (People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46, 54.) The Legislature created a