People v. Lanphear CA4/3

Filed 8/19/25 P. v. Lanphear CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064304

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCR35417)

RONALD EUGENE LANPHEAR, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bern. Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1979, a jury found Ronald Eugene Lanphear guilty of first degree murder, and found true several special circumstances allegations. Initially, he was sentenced to death, but the California Supreme Court reversed the imposition of the death penalty twice. In 2023, Lanphear filed a form petition for resentencing of his murder conviction under Penal Code 1 section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition, concluding Lanphear had failed to state a prima facie case for resentencing relief. Lanphear appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), stating no arguable issues could result in a disposition more favorable to Lanphear (id. at p. 232). Lanphear filed a supplemental brief. As discussed below, after an independent review of the record and the appellate briefing, we find no reasonably arguable issue on appeal. We therefore affirm the postjudgment order. I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 27, 1978, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed an information against Lanphear, charging him with the murder of Robert Unger (§ 187). The information also alleged that: (1) the murder was willful, deliberate and premeditated; (2) a firearm was used in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.5); and (3) Lanphear personally committed the murder during the commission of a robbery. As aggravating factors, the information alleged that Lanphear had murdered David Leipold in Kansas and an unidentified woman in New Mexico. It further alleged that