People v. Hunt CA2/1

Filed 1/4/21 P. v. Hunt CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B302851

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A614247)

v.

PAUL LEE HUNT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pat Connolly, Judge. Affirmed. ____________________________

Paul Lee Hunt, in pro. per.; and Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

On August 29, 2019, defendant and appellant Paul Lee Hunt filed a petition under Penal Code1 section 1170.95 for resentencing on his murder conviction. Section 1170.95 establishes a procedure for defendants who could no longer be convicted of murder because of changes enacted as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) to vacate their murder convictions. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, pp. 6675–6677.) Senate Bill No. 1437 abolished the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases of murder, and limited the application of the felony murder doctrine. (See People v. Gentile (Dec. 17, 2020, S256698) ___ Cal.5th ___ [2020 WL 7393491].) In particular, the new law allows convictions for felony murder only if the defendant was the actual killer, acted with the intent to kill, or was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. (See § 189, subd. (e).) The trial court summarily denied Hunt’s petition, finding as a matter of law that Hunt was not entitled to relief. Hunt filed a notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. His attorney filed a brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 raising no issues. When an attorney in an appeal of the denial of a petition under section 1170.95 files a brief of this kind, we are not obligated to search the record independently for arguable issues. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039–1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) The defendant, however, has the right to file a supplemental brief, and if so, we must “evaluate