People v. Ruiz CA4/3

Filed 4/20/23 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G061769

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08ZF0048)

DANNY CALVIN RUIZ, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed. William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2018, the California Legislature undertook a major change to California’s laws pertaining to murder. Effective January 1, 2019, it eviscerated the “felony murder” and “natural and probable consequences” theories of culpability in an attempt to ensure that punishment for murder was aligned with culpability. 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.” (Pen. Code, § 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. (Pen. Code, § 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, and 3) and he would not be liable for murder today because of how the Legislature has redefined that offense. That statute, originally numbered Penal Code section 1170.95 was subsequently renumbered as Penal Code section 1172.6. It sets out the new rules for proving murder, establishes the retroactivity of the new statute, and provides a procedural vehicle for those convicted under the discredited theories to challenge their convictions. We deal here with another of the burgeoning number of cases filed by inmates seeking to take advantage of the changes in the law. Those changes are, not surprisingly, confusing to people who have not received a legal education. And the attorneys appointed to represent these people are often finding themselves forced to admit to the court that their client’s misunderstanding of the law means there is no argument that can be made on appeal with a reasonable chance of success.