People v. Young CA1/1

Filed 6/1/23 P. v. Young CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166313 v. RONALD DEE YOUNG, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FC26089) Defendant and Appellant.

In 1990, a jury convicted defendant Ronald Dee Young of first degree murder and other crimes against Dawn Barth, and he was sentenced to 32 years to life in prison. This division affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Young (Mar. 31, 1992, A050961).) Decades later, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), which amended Penal Code1 sections 188 and 189 to alter liability for murder under the theories of felony murder and natural and probable consequences. The bill also established a procedure, under former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6, for eligible defendants to petition for resentencing. Young filed a petition for resentencing under the statute, and the trial court summarily denied it on the basis that he was Barth’s actual killer.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Young now appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221–222 (Delgadillo), which established the procedural framework for appellate courts to follow when counsel finds no arguable issues in a section 1172.6 appeal. Under that framework, we gave Young notice that he had a right to file a supplemental brief or his appeal could be dismissed. (See Delgadillo, at pp. 231–232.) Young filed a letter in which he claims that he was improperly convicted of first degree murder because evidence that would have negated his intent to kill was not admitted, meaning he was effectively tried on a theory of felony murder. He also seeks to replace his appellate counsel on the basis that counsel failed to raise the felony-murder issue or any other issues under section 1172.6. But the only theory of first degree murder on which the jury was instructed was premeditated murder, and it is clear from the record that Young “was the actual killer and the only participant in the killing.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233.) As a result, he is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6, and any potential procedural error in the denial of his resentencing petition was necessarily harmless. Accordingly, we deny his request for new counsel and affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 28, 1988, Young shot Barth to death in the apartment the two shared. He was tried and convicted of first degree murder, as well as corporal injury to a cohabitant and false imprisonment by violence based on