People v. Ross CA2/2

Filed 2/26/25 P. v. Ross CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B336398

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA006929) v.

GEORGE GERALD ROSS,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: George Gerald Ross was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to 35 years to life in prison. In 2023, he petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appointed counsel examined the record, filed a brief raising no issues, and requested that we review the record independently. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Ross submitted a supplemental brief asserting that his confession to the killing was coerced while he was illegally detained in jail and the enhancements to his sentence are improper. He does not argue that he is eligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. Because Ross presents no issue pertaining to section 1172.6, we dismiss his appeal. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1992, a jury convicted Ross of first degree murder. It found true that he personally used a firearm and intentionally inflicted great bodily injury and death by shooting the victim from a motor vehicle. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.5, 12022.55.) The trial court sentenced Ross to 25 years to life in prison for the murder, plus 10 years for the enhancements. This Division affirmed the judgment. (People v. Ross (Oct. 13, 1993, B068513 [nonpub. opn.].) The opinion states that Ross confessed to the murder, then asserted self-defense in his trial testimony. It concludes that police did not violate Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 to obtain his confession. It addresses Ross’s claims that he confessed while illegally confined in jail and was denied a fair hearing on the voluntariness of his confession. In March 2023, Ross petitioned for resentencing alleging that the information allowed the prosecution to proceed under the felony-murder rule, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or other imputed malice theory. The district attorney opposed Ross’s petition, arguing that the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any other theory of imputed malice. Nor was it instructed on aiding and abetting. Instead, Ross “was prosecuted as the actual perpetrator who acted with actual malice.” As a