People v. Haven CA3

Filed 6/20/23 P. v. Haven CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093641

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F01615)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

ROBERT HAVEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us ostensibly pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. After defendant declined to file a supplemental brief, we dismissed the appeal as abandoned in our original opinion filed on January 19, 2022. Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review and that court has directed us to reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. After this case was transferred back to us from our Supreme Court, defendant filed a supplemental brief raising two arguments: First, he argues the trial court erred in

1

failing to give a number of jury instructions requested at trial by his counsel. Second, he argues police officers impermissibly conducted a warrantless search that led to his arrest. Because we conclude these arguments are not cognizable in this appeal, we shall affirm. BACKGROUND In 2013, a jury found defendant Robert Haven guilty of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187.)1 2 The jury also found true the special circumstance that he intentionally killed the victim by means of lying in wait. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15).) We affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. (People v. Haven (Aug. 28, 2019, C074940) [nonpub. opn.].) On May 26, 2020, defendant filed a petition under section 1172.63 to have his murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced, arguing that he was “convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine,” and that he “could not now be convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder because of changes made to [] §§ 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019.” The trial court received briefing from the prosecutor and counsel for defendant and denied the petition finding the “jury was not instructed on either felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” The court further found the jury verdicts in the record of conviction “leave no doubt” the jury found defendant was either the actual killer or aided and abetted his codefendant in killing the victim, and that, regardless, defendant