People v. Patino CA3

Filed 3/22/21 P. v. Patino CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090280

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR-FE- 2011-0006437, SF117955A) v.

MARCO ANTONIO PATINO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Marco Antonio Patino appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 On appeal, defendant contends (1) the trial court erred when it ruled that his conviction did not implicate felony-murder principles or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and (2) his voluntary manslaughter conviction is eligible for relief under the new law. Because we disagree with the second contention, we need not reach the first, and we affirm.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND An April 2012 information charged defendant with committing willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (§ 187) in 2009, and seven other crimes. In October 2012, the trial court granted the prosecution’s request to amend the murder charge to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)), and defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and four other crimes. After the three remaining counts were dismissed, the trial court imposed a sentence of 29 years eight months in state prison. “In 2018, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 1437), which restricted the circumstances under which a person can be liable for felony murder and abrogated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as applied to murder. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.) [The law added section 1170.95,] . . . a procedure permitting qualified persons with murder convictions to petition to vacate their convictions and obtain resentencing if they were previously convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” (People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985, 989 (Flores).) In July 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing, seeking vacatur of his manslaughter conviction pursuant to section 1170.95, arguing he pleaded guilty to the manslaughter charge “in lieu of going to trial because [he] believed [he] could have been convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder at trial pursuant to the felony[-]murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” The trial court denied the petition, ruling “evidence presented at the preliminary examination clearly showed that this case did not involve felony murder or a natural and probable consequences theory.” Defendant timely appealed.