People v. Landaverde CA2/6

Filed 4/16/25 P. v. Landaverde CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B334537 (Super. Ct. No. TA143431) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

MAURICIO LANDAVERDE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Mauricio Landaverde appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing on his attempted murder conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 He contends the trial court erred when it found him ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) went into effect before he pleaded no contest to the crime. The Attorney General concedes the error. We agree and will reverse.

1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the

Penal Code.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant and others were involved in a gang-related shooting. In September 2019 appellant pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) He received a negotiated term of 17 years in prison. Appellant petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6) in May of 2022. He denied being the actual shooter and argued prosecutors could not prove his guilt after Senate Bill 1437 abolished imputed malice as a basis for murder. The trial court found appellant ineligible for resentencing because SB 1437’s amendments took effect before he pleaded no contest to attempted murder. This meant he “could not have been tried on a theory of imputed malice if his case proceeded to trial.” It denied his petition on this ground. DISCUSSION Senate Bill 1437 “amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, 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.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f); People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842, superseded by statute as stated in People v. Birdsall (2002) 77 Cal.App.5th 859, 864.) It established a procedure for defendants convicted of murder on an implied malice theory to petition for resentencing under current law. (Former § 1170.95, subd. (a).) Those who accepted a plea in lieu of trial could also petition for resentencing if they “accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which [they] could be convicted for first degree or second degree murder.” (Id., subd. (a)(2).)