People v. Rendon CA4/3

Filed 8/19/20 P. v. Rendon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G057637

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12CF1604)

ADRIAN RENDON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez, Charles S. Lee and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION Defendant Adrian Rendon was convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and sentenced to 25 years to life. Pursuant 1 to Penal Code section 1170.95, defendant filed a petition for resentencing. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s petition. We affirm. The language of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1051, § 4), the legislation that enacted section 1170.95, applies to murder, not attempted murder. Even the cases which defendant cites that reach the conclusion Senate Bill No. 1437 applies to attempted murder also conclude that section 1170.95 does not permit resentencing petitions for those already convicted of attempted murder.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of the underlying case are fully set forth in our prior unpublished opinion, People v. Rendon and Sevilla (June 26, 2018, G054006). In short, in the process of committing a carjacking, defendant’s codefendant shot the victim in the head; the victim survived the attack. It is undisputed that defendant was not the shooter. Defendant claimed at trial that he was not part of a conspiracy to murder the victim, and that he did not know his codefendant had a gun or that he would shoot or try to kill the victim. (Ibid.) Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 187, subd. (a) [count 1]), attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a) [count 2]), and carjacking (§ 215, subd. (a) [count 3]). The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison on count 1; sentences of life with the possibility of parole after seven years on count 2 and five years determinate on count 3 were to run concurrent to the sentence on count 1, and were stayed pursuant to section 654. A panel 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.