California Court of Appeal Jul 13, 2023 No. E080146Unpublished
Filed 7/13/23 P. v. Landis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E080146
v. (Super.Ct.No. CR59243)
RICHARD HAROLD LANDIS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge.
(Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Richard Harold Landis, in pro. per.; Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Richard Harold Landis appeals the Riverside County
Superior Court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.1 We
will affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 1995, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder of Karen Beloz, who
was found strangled and wrapped in a blanket in the backseat of a car that had been
In August 1995, the court sentenced defendant to a total indeterminate sentence of
101 years to life. The sentence consisted of 75 years to life for the first degree murder
conviction, a term of 25 years to life under the three strikes law for the Vehicle Code
section 2800.2 felony violation, and a one-year term for the prison prior stemming from a
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
vehicle theft in 1989. Defendant appealed the judgment and we affirmed. (Landis I,
supra, E016856.)
In May 2022, we affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition for recall
of his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126, which, by its terms, does not apply to
persons convicted of any homicide offense. We also denied his request to remand his
case for compliance with the procedures for recall and resentencing pursuant to section
1171.1, which had rendered legally invalid his prison prior enhancement, finding it would
undermine the Legislature’s purpose for establishing staggered deadlines for
implementation of that statute.
In July 2022, defendant filed a resentencing petition pursuant to section 1172.6.
The People and defendant’s counsel agreed defendant was the actual killer, that the jury
was not instructed on either the felony murder or natural and probable consequences
theory, and defendant was not eligible for resentencing relief. The court denied the
petition. Defendant timely noticed this appeal from the denial.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that sets
forth statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication.
Counsel notes we have discretion under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 to
conduct an independent review of the record in appeals from denials of section 1172.6
petitions, and states she considered whether the trial court erred “to the extent the court
denied the petition based in part on [the People’s] representation that [defendant] was
3
ineligible for relief” because our opinion stated that defendant strangled and burned the
victim.
Upon receipt of the opening brief, we notified defendant (i) that his counsel had
filed a brief stating she had not found an arguable issue, (ii) that this court is not required
to conduct an independent review of the record but may exercise its discretion to do so,
and (iii) we invited him to file any arguments he deemed necessary.
In his handwritten letter submitted in response to our invitation, defendant raises
two points in support of his claim. He argues section 1172.6 states that a hearing on a
petition should take place “if there is any doubt of petitioner’s innocence” and concludes
that he should either be granted a new trial or be released by this court in the interests of
justice. In a related argument, defendant posits that former section 1170.03 (which was
amended and renumbered to § 1172.1 by Stats 2022, ch. 58 § 9 (Assem. Bill No. 200),
eff. June 30, 2022, and will be referred to by its current number) not only “clarifies” the
court’s duty to determine whether defendant could presently be convicted of murder but
also provides the court an opportunity to consider a defendant’s mitigating factors.
In support of his claims, defendant expresses a variety of concerns about his trial
and conviction: no motive was established, his ex-wife had made threats against the
victim and had motive to kill her, there was no DNA or blood evidence, and the statement
of the only witness against him was obtained by the detectives by means of coercion.
Defendant did not raise those issues in his appeal from the judgment (Landis I, supra,
E016856.), and the time for seeking review of them has long since passed. (Cal. Rules of
4
Court, rule 8.308(a) [notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after rendition of the
judgment or the making of the order being appealed].)
Defendant also asks this court to resentence him, suggesting a reduction of his
charge to manslaughter and time served. He points to his conclusion that his ex-wife
committed the murder, and notes as well that he suffers from several serious physical
maladies, he has a large family that provides a huge support system, that (to his credit) he
has completed a number of programs, has letters of recommendation from law
enforcement personnel, and has proven to the Department of Corrections and the public
that he is not a danger to society. Defendant’s efforts to obtain resentencing must be
directed to the superior court in the county in which defendant was sentenced (§ 1172.1,
subd. (a)) and, to the extent, if any, defendant may be eligible for elderly or medical
parole, those efforts must be directed to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
McKINSTER J.
RAPHAEL J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, finding the defendant ineligible for relief as the actual killer who was not convicted under felony murder or natural and probable consequences theories.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.
Whether the defendant's claims regarding trial evidence and mitigating factors warrant a new trial or resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The People and defendant’s counsel agreed defendant was the actual killer, that the jury was not instructed on either the felony murder or natural and probable consequences theory, and defendant was not eligible for resentencing relief.”
“The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.”