People v. Valle CA3

Filed 4/1/21 P. v. Valle CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C089454

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFE20120006426, v. SF118647C)

JOSE ANTONIO VALLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

While defendant Jose Antonio Valle was serving his prison term for voluntary manslaughter and residential burglary convictions, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 1-4), which amended the law governing murder liability under the felony-murder and natural and probable consequences theories and provided a new procedure under Penal Code section 1170.95 for eligible defendants to petition for recall and resentencing.1 Defendant filed a section

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

1170.95 petition, which the trial court summarily denied. He appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing, arguing: (1) the court erred by summarily denying his petition after determining that he failed to establish a prima facie case that he fell within the provisions of the statute without first appointing counsel and obtaining further briefing; (2) the trial court erred when it ruled that his voluntary manslaughter conviction is ineligible for relief under the statute; and (3) the trial court’s interpretation of the statute violates his right to equal protection. We will affirm. I. BACKGROUND In 2013, defendant pled guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)—count 1) and four counts of first degree residential burglary (§ 211—counts 2- 5). As to count 1, he further admitted to using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The court imposed an aggregate term of 29 years as follows: For count 1, 11 years plus 10 years (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and for counts 2 through 5, a consecutive two years each. In March 2019, defendant filed a section 1170.95 petition seeking resentencing, claiming that he was convicted of murder pursuant to the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s petition because defendant did not plead guilty to first or second degree murder, but rather, voluntary manslaughter. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. II. DISCUSSION A. No Violation of Section 1170.95 Defendant contends the trial court erred by summarily denying his petition without following procedures that he claims section 1170.95 mandates, including appointing counsel and giving the parties the opportunity to file additional briefing. We disagree. The parties’ dispute turns on the meaning of section 1170.95, subdivision (c), which provides: “The court shall review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of this section.