People v. Urrutia CA4/3

Filed 11/13/20 P. v. Urrutia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058118

v. (Super. Ct. No. 02NF0517)

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ URRUTIA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew A. Siroka, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Carlos Rodriguez Urrutia appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing on his conviction for attempted murder (Pen. Code, § 1170.95, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code). Because section 1170.95 applies only to murder convictions, the trial court properly denied Urrutia’s petition. We affirm the court’s order. FACTS A detailed recitation of the facts can be found in our prior nonpublished opinion People v. Catalan et al. (G034279, June 15, 2006). Suffice it to say, in 2004, a jury convicted Urrutia, and his co-defendant, of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder and street terrorism. The trial court sentenced Urrutia to 15 years to life in prison, where he remains. We affirmed his convictions with modifications to his credits. (Catalan, supra, G034279.) In 2019, pursuant to the Legislature’s amendments to the Penal Code in Senate Bill No. 1437 (S.B. 1437), Urrutia filed a petition seeking to vacate his attempted murder conviction pursuant to section 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition, ruling the following: “The petition does not set forth a prima [facie] case for relief under the statute. A review of court records indicates defendant is not eligible for relief under the statute because the defendant does not stand convicted of murder or defendant’s murder conviction(s) is not based on felony-murder or on a natural and probable consequences theory of vicarious liability for aiders and abettors.” DISCUSSION Urrutia argues the trial court abused its discretion by concluding section 1170.95 was inapplicable to attempted murder. We disagree. S.B. 1437 amended sections 188 and 189, and added section 1170.95. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-4.) The intent of the legislation was to limit application of the felony murder rule and murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine by modifying the mens rea element of those crimes. The legislation also created