People v. Ruiz CA4/3

Filed 3/30/23 P. v. Ruiz CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061508

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF106251)

RICARDO RUIZ, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Louis R. Hanoian, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Gene D. Vorobyov, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

1 This is another of the burgeoning Wende filings occasioned by recent legislative changes that are, not unsurprisingly, confusing to people who have not received a legal education. Appellant Ruiz is apparently spending a lot of time mulling over these changes – unfortunately to no avail. This is appellant’s third trip to our court. He appealed his underlying murder conviction in 2011 and achieved a reduction of his sentence from life without parole to life with parole. Then, in 2021, he petitioned for resentencing under Proposition 47, which changed California law regarding the felony murder rule and the reasonable and natural consequences doctrine. There was no basis for a change in his case and he lost that appeal. Nine months ago, he filed this action, seeking relief pursuant to newly- 2 enacted Penal Code section 1172.6. Section 1172.6 is the procedural mechanism for implementing legislative changes in California law which narrow the scope of vicarious liability for murder in two ways. First, the Legislature eliminated the natural and probable consequences theory for that crime by providing that “[m]alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3).) Second, it reined in the felony murder rule so that it can only be applied to nonkillers if they aided and abetted the killer in committing first degree murder, or they were a major participant in the underlying felony and acted recklessly indifferent to human life. (§ 189, subd. (e).) To obtain relief under the new section, the defendant must show 1) he was prosecuted for murder under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, 2) he was ultimately convicted of first or second degree murder,