People v. Patrick CA4/3

Filed 2/3/21 P. v. Patrick 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G057997

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09NF2376)

JIMMY RAY PATRICK, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

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

Appellant Jimmy Ray Patrick challenges an order denying his petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which restricts the scope of vicarious liability for the crime of murder. The trial court ruled this restriction unlawfully amended Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 in violation of the California Constitution. We disagree with that conclusion. However, by its terms, SB 1437 applies only to those defendants who were convicted of murder. Because appellant was convicted of manslaughter, not murder, he is not entitled to resentencing relief pursuant to SB 1437. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order denying his petition. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2011, appellant and two codefendants were charged with gang-related special circumstances murder. Appellant ended up pleading guilty to voluntary manslaughter with a firearm enhancement and was sentenced to 16 years in prison. In 2019, appellant petitioned to have his conviction vacated and to be resentenced pursuant to SB 1437. In support of his petition, appellant alleged he did not personally kill the victim, and he could not be convicted of murder under the new rules respecting vicarious liability that were ushered in by SB 1437. The district attorney opposed the petition on multiple grounds. His principle argument was that SB 1437 violates the California Constitution by amending Proposition 7 and Proposition 115 without voter approval. He also contended appellant was statutorily ineligible for resentencing because he was convicted of manslaughter, as opposed to murder. The trial court denied appellant’s petition on the first basis, without considering the second. It did not believe SB 1437 was constitutional, due to the various changes it made to the law of murder in this state. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding SB 1437 unconstitutional, and we agree. However, because appellant is ineligible for resentencing relief under SB 1437 as a matter of law, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.