People v. Kelly CA4/3

Filed 10/14/25 P. v. Kelly 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G064443

v. (Super. Ct. No. C-95479)

TIMOTHY JOHN KELLY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed. Ava R. Stralla, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Timothy John Kelly appeals following the denial of his Penal Code former section 1170.95 petition,1 in which he sought the vacatur of his two 1993 first degree murder convictions. After issuing an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt Kelly would be guilty of first degree murder under current law as a principal, an aider and abettor, or under the felony murder rule. Appointed counsel for Kelly filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and requested this court conduct an independent review of the entire record. Counsel also identified two issues to assist this court in its review. Kelly was given an opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Exercising our discretion under Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at page 232, we have examined the entire record and found no reasonably arguable issue. We therefore affirm. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1993, a jury convicted Kelly of two counts of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), one count of first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460), first degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). The jury found true the special circumstances of murder while engaged in the commission of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)) and burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(vii)), and multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). However, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the firearm use allegations (§§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)) as to all counts,