People v. Contreras CA2/3

Filed 12/9/21 P. v. Contreras CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B311469

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA068469) v.

MARCOS ANTHONY CONTRERAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sean D. Coen, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. —————————

Marcos Anthony Contreras appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95. Our independent review of the record shows no arguable appellate issues. BACKGROUND In 2007, a jury convicted Contreras of one count of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and five counts of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) after he participated in a gang- related drive-by shooting that resulted in the death of seven-year- old Horace Ferguson. The trial court sentenced Contreras to a term of 75 years to life in prison. A different panel of this Division affirmed the judgment with directions to correct the abstract of judgment in 2008. (People v. Contreras (Feb. 19, 2008, B197761) [nonpub. opn.].) On June 8, 2020, Contreras petitioned for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. He alleged that he was charged and convicted under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and could not now be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189 by Senate Bill No. 1437. The trial court denied the petition on March 1, 2021, finding that the jury must have concluded that Contreras acted with the intent to kill. Thus, Contreras could still be convicted of murder under section 188 or 189 as amended by Senate Bill No. 1437. Contreras appealed.