People v. White CA3

California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 2022 No. C091461Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant convicted of second-degree murder based on actual implied malice—specifically for a vehicular homicide—is ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 because the statute only applies to convictions based on felony murder, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or other theories of imputed malice.

Issues

Whether a conviction for second-degree murder based on actual implied malice under People v. Watson is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.
Whether amendments to Penal Code section 1170.95 via Senate Bill No. 775 expand eligibility to include defendants convicted of murder based on actual implied malice.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendant was convicted under a theory of actual implied malice based upon his own actions and own mens rea, not the malice of another person imputed to him under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.”

“The Legislature was not, as defendant argues, intent on extending resentencing to defendants convicted of murder for driving in such an intoxicated state the jury finds defendant acted with actual implied malice.”

“He remains ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.”

Filed 4/29/22 P. v. White CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091461

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. LOD-CR-FE- 2006-0000384, LF009183A) v.

MATTHEW DOUGLAS WHITE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Matthew Douglas White appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 Defendant argues the trial court incorrectly concluded he was ineligible for relief because section 1170.95 applies to second degree murder under People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290 (Watson).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In supplemental briefing, defendant argues the recent amendments to section 1170.952 further support his argument. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We quote the facts from our prior opinion. “Defendant drove down Interstate 5 at a high rate of speed, weaving in and out of traffic. He was drunk. The parties stipulated that more than an hour later defendant’s blood alcohol level was .16 percent. Defendant pulled onto the right shoulder to pass a truck and collided with a car that was stopped on the shoulder. The driver of the stopped car was killed. The two passengers in defendant’s car were injured.” (People v. White (Jan. 21, 2011, C063838) [nonpub. opn.] [at p. 2].) “A jury convicted defendant of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187); gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)); driving under the influence, causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)) and driving with a blood alcohol level of .08 percent or higher, causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)), both with three enhancements for causing great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)) and one for inflicting great bodily injury on multiple victims (Veh. Code, § 23558); driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)); exhibition of speed (Veh. Code, § 23109, subd. (c)); and unsafe passing on the right (Veh. Code, § 21755). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate, unstayed term of 17 years to life in prison.” (People v. White, supra, C063838 [at pp. 1-2].) Defendant filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. In the petition, defendant declared he met the requirements for relief, specifically, that (1) the complaint, information, or indictment filed against him allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or the natural and probable consequences

People v. White CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C091461

MATTHEW DOUGLAS WHITE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief