People v. Parchue CA2/3

Filed 3/19/25 P. v. Parchue CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B336411

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA020010-01 v.

ARTHUR ANDREW PARCHUE,

Defendant and Appellant.

PURPORTED APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke II, Judge. Dismissed.

Robert H. Derham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Arthur Andrew Parchue purports to appeal from an order dismissing his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 However, the court dismissed the petition at Parchue’s request after he insisted he wanted to “withdraw” the petition he had filed. Accordingly, the court’s order granting Parchue’s request does not affect his substantial rights within the meaning of section 1237, subdivision (b) and we dismiss his purported appeal. In 1990, a jury convicted Parchue, as well as his codefendant Darryl Dinko Sally, of the first degree murders of Lavoial Alexander and Julius Wilton Booth. The jury found true allegations that Parchue personally used a firearm in the commission of the crimes as well as special circumstances of multiple murder and murder in the commission of robbery or attempted robbery. (People v. Parchue et al. (Feb. 15, 1995, B066479) [nonpub. opn.] (Parchue I).) In September 2021 Parchue filed a form petition for resentencing. He checked boxes that said an information had been filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, he had been convicted of first degree murder under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and he could not now be convicted of those murders because of changes to sections 188 and 189. Parchue also checked the box asking the court to appoint counsel for him. The court appointed counsel, Victor Salerno, for Parchue. On November 4, 2021, the prosecution filed a response,