People v. Higgs CA2/8

Filed 4/28/21 P. v. Higgs CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B305937

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA071844) v.

BRANDEN TREVAUGHN HIGGS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David B. Gelfound, Judge. Affirmed. Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee and William H. Shin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

In April 2015, defendant and appellant Branden Trevaughn Higgs pled no contest to four counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), § 664) and one count of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and admitted a firearm use allegation (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to a term of 16 years eight months. In 2018, Senate Bill 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) was passed. Penal Code section 1170.95 was enacted as part of the legislative changes effected by Senate Bill 1437 and became effective January 1, 2019. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) In early 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. On March 9, 2020, the trial court summarily denied defendant’s petition without appointing counsel. The trial court concluded defendant had not stated a prima facie case for relief because he was convicted of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter, not murder. Defendant appealed. He contends the trial court’s summary denial of his resentencing petition was in error and violated his rights to due process, equal protection and the assistance of counsel. He argues the statutory amendments effected by Senate Bill 1437 should be broadly interpreted to cover attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter, and that it was structural error for the trial court to deny his petition without first appointing counsel. We disagree. “Senate Bill 1437 was enacted to ‘amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.’