People v. Reyna CA4/1

Filed 7/19/21 P. v. Reyna CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D077918

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE333769)

JOHN REYNA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John Thompson, Judge. Affirmed. Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Elizabeth M. Kuchar, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013, John Reyna was charged with first degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and conspiracy to commit a crime (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)).

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In 2014, Reyna pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a).) The factual basis of the plea was that Reyna took the life of a human being “without malice aforethought.” The court sentenced Reyna to a determinate term of 11 years. In 2020, Reyna filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95, claiming he pleaded guilty to manslaughter to avoid trial for felony murder under an aider and abettor theory. Accordingly, Reyna contends he is entitled to resentencing under section 1170.95, even though he was not convicted of murder. The court denied the petition, finding Reyna was not eligible for relief because he was not convicted of murder, which is a necessary prerequisite for relief under the statute. Reyna on appeal acknowledges all Court of Appeal decisions regarding eligibility for relief by persons convicted of manslaughter have rejected his contentions. He notes the California Supreme Court has not granted review in any of the cases, and argues that all of the appellate decisions rejecting his arguments are wrong. We reject Reyna’s arguments and adhere to the views we expressed in People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428, 435-439. DISCUSSION Senate Bill No. 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.’ ” (People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723.) Section 1170.95 was created to permit defendants convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to file a