People v. Laberge CA4/1

Filed 9/24/21 P. v. Laberge CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D078234

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN015705)

CIRESE FAYE LABERGE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers, Lynne G. McGinnis, and Matthew Mulford, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1995, following a second jury trial, Cirese Faye Laberge was

convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) while armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182 subd. (a)) while armed. The court sentenced Laberge to an indeterminate term of 16 years to life in prison. Laberge appealed, and this court affirmed the second degree murder count but reversed the conspiracy count. The court held there was no possible crime of conspiracy to commit unintentional murder and reversed the conspiracy count in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Laberge (Aug. 13,

1998, D025887) [nonpub. opn.].)2 In 2019, Laberge filed a pro. per. petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. She claimed she had been convicted on a theory of felony murder or natural and probable consequences and could not now be convicted under current law. The court appointed counsel and received briefing. After a review of the record the court denied the petition by a written order stating: “The Court has reviewed all of the CALJIC instructions in SCN15705, People v. Cirese LaBerge. “There were no instructions given on either the Felony Murder Rule or natural and probable consequences. The only mention of ‘natural consequences’ was in CALJIC 8.11 in the definition of implied malice. “In CALJIC 3.01 the jury was instructed that they must find the defendant aided and abetted with the knowledge of the unlawful purpose of the perpetrator, the murder of Kristi Anderson by Erin O’Conner and with the intent or purpose of committing, encouraging, or facilitating the commission of that crime.