People v. Murphy CA4/1

Filed 1/13/25 P. v. Murphy CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082908

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE359335) ALFRED EARL MURPHY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed. Joanna McKim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistance Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Seth M. Friedman and Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Alfred Earl Murphy and two codefendants of first degree murder. Since then, California passed Senate Bill No. 775 (2021- 2022 Reg. Sess.), which provides that defendants who had been convicted of murder may be eligible for resentencing relief, if the conviction was based on

a now discredited theory of imputed malice. Murphy petitioned for such relief, and the trial court denied his petition at the prima facie stage, without conducting an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Murphy contends that the trial court erred when it denied his petition because the record of conviction did not establish his ineligibility for relief. We disagree. Accordingly, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In an information, Murphy and codefendants Danielle Dumont and Nicoy Smith were charged with the murder of Prince Brown. The information alleged that Murphy intentionally and personally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury and death “to a person” within the

meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d).1 The information further alleged that each of Murphy’s codefendants, “although not personally armed with a firearm, was himself a principal in the commission and attempted commission of the above offense and was vicariously liable” within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). The court instructed the jury both as to murder (“the defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person”) and as to felony murder. The felony murder instructions included CALCRIM No. 540A