People v. Laws CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Dec 28, 2021 No. B313216Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the summary denial of the defendant's third petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, concluding that the record of conviction conclusively established the defendant was the actual killer and thus ineligible for relief.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying a third petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.
Whether the defendant was entitled to relief under Penal Code section 1170.95 despite prior findings that he was the actual killer.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal from the denial of a postconviction petition.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it has been conclusively established that Laws was the actual killer.”

“A section 1170.95 petition, or an appeal from the denial of such a petition, is not the appropriate vehicle for such challenges.”

“there is no basis for reversal of the trial court’s order dismissing Laws’s section 1170.95 petition.”

Filed 12/28/21 P. v. Laws CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B313216

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA008785) v.

BRIAN KEITH LAWS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Bruce F. Marrs, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Brian Keith Laws appeals from the summary denial of his third petition for resentencing under Penal Code 1 section 1170.95. His appointed counsel filed an opening brief asking this court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano), and Laws filed a supplemental brief. We have considered that supplemental brief and affirm the order denying the petition.

BACKGROUND This is the fourth time we have addressed this case. Our summary of the factual and procedural background is taken from our prior opinions, People v. Laws (June 30, 1994, B075311) [nonpub. opn.] (Laws I), in which we affirmed Laws’s conviction, and People v. Laws (Apr. 22, 2020, B296014) [nonpub. opn.] (Laws II) and People v. Laws (May 17, 2021, B307911) [nonpub. opn.] (Laws III), in which we affirmed the summary denial of prior section 1170.95 petitions for resentencing. In June 1991, Laws shot and killed a clerk of a convenience store after demanding and receiving money from the clerk. (Laws II, supra, at p. 2, citing Laws I, supra, at pp. 3–4, 9–10.) He was charged by information with first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and second degree robbery (§ 211). The information also included a special circumstances allegation that the murder was committed in the course of a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), and a personal use of a firearm allegation (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 1203.06, subd. (a)(1)). (Laws II, supra,

People v. Laws CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B313216

BRIAN KEITH LAWS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief