People v. Phillips CA2/6

Filed 3/16/26 P. v. Phillips 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B337616 (Super. Ct. No. TA130215) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

KEVIN PHILLIPS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Kevin Phillips appeals after the trial court denied his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Appellant contends he is entitled to relief because the jury instructions, including those on aiding and abetting, allowed the jury to convict him “on an overly broad or improper theory of imputed malice.” We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND “In 2014, a jury convicted [appellant], [Marvin] Vital, and [Christopher] Ladd of the first degree murder of [Markice] Brider (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189 [count 2]) and found true the special

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

circumstance allegation that the murder was intentionally committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)). The jury also found true allegations that a principal discharged a firearm causing death and that the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A), 12022.53, subds. (b)-(e)). [Appellant] was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 25 years to life.” (People v. Phillips (Jan. 27, 2022, B308806) [nonpub. opn.], fn. omitted.) On appeal, we struck appellant’s parole revocation fine and remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to strike his section 12022.53 enhancement in light of Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). (People v. Phillips (June 20, 2018, B272498 [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court declined to strike the enhancement, and we affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Phillips (Mar. 10, 2020, B297896) [nonpub. opn.].) In September 2020, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (subsequently renumbered section 1172.6). The trial court denied the petition, and we affirmed on appeal. (People v. Phillips, supra, B308806.) In February 2024, appellant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court initially took no action. Following a motion for reconsideration, the court issued a memorandum of decision denying the petition on the merits. DISCUSSION Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 “altered the substantive law of murder in two areas. First, with certain exceptions, it narrowed the application of the felony-murder rule . . . . Second, [it] imposed a new requirement that, except in cases of felony murder, ‘a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought’ to be convicted of murder. (§ 188, subd. (a)(3).)