People v. Wright CA1/5

Filed 7/27/23 P. v. Wright CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A165872 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Francisco City & County ANTHONY WRIGHT, Super. Ct. Nos. SCN220707, CT11026885) Defendant and Appellant.

Charged with murder and related crimes in 2011, Anthony Wright pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted the personal use of a firearm. In 2022, the trial court denied his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 On appeal, he contends the court employed the wrong standard of proof. It did not. We affirm.

BACKGROUND A. Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437), effective January 1, 2019, changed the law relating to accomplice liability for murder to better align punishment with individual culpability. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1(b), (f).) To that end, Senate Bill 1437 eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as to murder and narrowed

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

the felony murder exception to the malice requirement. (People v. Mancilla (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 854, 862 (Mancilla).)

As relevant here, it amended section 189 to require that the perpetrator of a felony murder was either (1) the actual killer; (2) aided and abetted the killer with the intent to kill; or (3) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 3; § 189, subd. (e); see § 190.2, subd. (d).)

Through former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6), Senate Bill 1437 also created a mechanism for offenders convicted under the former felony murder rule to petition the trial court to vacate their conviction and for resentencing if they could not have been convicted of murder under the amended statutes. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4; Mancilla, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 862.) A person convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter prior to Senate Bill 1437 may seek retroactive relief under this provision if (1) the information or indictment allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any other theory under which malice is imputed based solely on the defendant's participation in a crime; and (2) the petitioner could not be convicted of murder under current law. (§ 1172.6, subds. (a)(1), (a)(3).)