People v. Miller CA4/1

Filed 7/20/23 P. v. Miller CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D080999

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE249592)

ARTHUR LEE MILLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Patricia K. Cookson, Judge. Affirmed. Arthur Lee Miller, in pro. per.; Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Arthur Lee Miller shot James E. in the back of the head, killing him. Miller then approached and pointed his gun at Richard A. Richard ran as Miller pursued him. Miller tried to shoot Richard several times but his gun would not fire. On November 18, 2005, a jury convicted Miller of second

degree murder (count 1; Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted voluntary manslaughter (count 2; §§ 664 & 192, subd. (a)). The jury also found true that Miller personally used a handgun in the commission of both crimes (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), personally used a handgun in the commission of the attempted voluntary manslaughter (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and intentionally discharged a handgun in the commission of the murder which proximately caused great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced Miller to a total prison term of 55 years, six months to life. This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Miller (Dec. 21, 2007, D048704) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, Miller petitioned for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95). After appointing counsel for Miller, the trial court held a hearing and denied the petition based on Miller’s failure to make a prima facie case for relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).) The court stated: “The Court finds, Mr. Miller, that you have not established prima facie evidence showing that you’re entitled to relief. You were the only suspect involved in this crime. The jury found that you personally killed the victim when they found you to personally and intentionally discharge a firearm, causing the victim’s death. You were the only participant in the murder and you yourself intentionally fired the gun, causing the victim’s death. You’re not entitled to relief as to that charge.