People v. Rangel CA2/4

Filed 5/18/22 P. v. Rangel CA2/4 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B302169

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA070627 v.

MYRA RANGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hilleri G. Merritt, Judge. Affirmed. John Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee, Charles J. Sarosy, Idan Ivri and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION In a prior opinion regarding this appeal from the denial of a petition for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95,1 we concluded appellant Myra Rangel was ineligible for relief as a matter of law because her convictions for attempted premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder were outside the scope of the statute. Our Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to this court, with directions that we vacate our prior decision and reconsider the cause in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Reg. Sess. 2021-2022) (SB 775). After reconsidering the cause, we conclude that appellant remains ineligible for relief as a matter of law. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND2 In 2013, a jury found appellant and three codefendants guilty of conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1) & 187, subd. (a)), attempted premeditated murder (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 664), and shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246). It also found true allegations that the crimes were committed for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (§ 186, subds. (b)(1)(C) & (b)(4)), and a principal—not appellant—personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). Appellant was sentenced