California Court of Appeal Nov 17, 2022 No. E079106Unpublished
Filed 11/17/22 P. v. Razon CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E079106
v. (Super.Ct.No. ICR17621)
DWAYNE BERNARD RAZON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed.
Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Dwayne Bernard Razon appeals the Riverside County
Superior Court’s denial of his petition for resentencing made pursuant to section 1172.6
of the Penal Code.1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1995, a jury found defendant guilty of several offenses, including second degree
murder in violation of section 187. In 1996, the trial court sentenced him to a prison term
Defendant appealed his conviction to this court. (People v. Razon (Feb. 26, 1998,
E018625) [nonpub. opn.].) He raised several arguments, including insufficiency of the
evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that he committed provocative act murder. We
corrected an error in the abstract of judgment and affirmed the judgment in all other
respects.
On January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 became effective. (Stats. 2018,
ch. 1015.) That measure amended sections 188 (defining malice) and 189 (defining
degrees of murder) to limit the reach of the felony-murder rule in cases of first and
second degree murder and eliminated the natural and probable consequences liability for
murder. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.) The bill also added section 1172.6, which creates a
procedure for convicted murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended
to retroactively seek relief.
1 Section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without change in the text, effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the provision by its new numbering. All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
In December 2020, defendant’s section 1172.6 handwritten petition to the trial
court was summarily denied without prejudice. Defendant then filed a form petition in
February 2021. The court appointed counsel for him and ordered the People to show
cause why the petition should not be granted. The People responded that defendant was
not eligible for relief because (i) the jury had not been given instructions on the felony-
murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and (ii) the jury found
defendant guilty of provocative act murder. At the May 2021 hearing, the trial court,
relying on People v. Johnson, found defendant was ineligible for relief found because
Senate Bill No. 1437 does not apply to provocative act murder. (People v. Johnson
On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief in
accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, that is, the brief set forth
statements of the case and facts but did not present any issues for adjudication.
Defendant did not respond to our invitation to submit a personal supplemental brief. We
affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition after we conducted an independent review
and found no arguable issues. (People v. Razon (Aug. 26, 2021, E077085) [nonpub.
opn.].)
In January 2022, defendant filed another section 1172.6 petition. The trial court
appointed counsel for defendant and set the matter for a status hearing. At the hearing,
the People argued defendant’s eligibility for relief under section 1172.6 had already been
3
fully litigated in May 2021, and the trial court’s dismissal at that time was affirmed by
this court. Defendant’s counsel submitted the matter, and the court denied the petition
with prejudice. Defendant appealed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that sets forth
statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication. She
suggests this court is required to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to
People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
Counsel presents four potentially arguable issues: (i) what procedures are
appointed counsel and the Court of Appeal required to follow when counsel determines
that an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief lacks arguable merit;
(ii) whether defendant is entitled to notice of those procedures; (iii) whether the trial court
erred when it denied defendant’s petition for relief under section 1172.6; and,
(iv) whether the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition constituted prejudicial error.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Although we are not required to independently review the record for
potential errors in a postjudgment appeal, we exercised our discretion to do so in keeping
with our opinion in People v. Griffin (Nov. 14, 2022, E079269) ___ Cal.App.5th ___
[2022 Cal.App. LEXIS 936]. We found no arguable issues.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
FIELDS J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 after finding no arguable issues on appeal.
Issues
What procedures must counsel and the Court of Appeal follow when an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief lacks arguable merit?
Is the defendant entitled to notice of those procedures?
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's petition for relief under section 1172.6?
Did the trial court's denial of the petition constitute prejudicial error?