People v. Davis CA1/3

Filed 9/8/23 P. v. Davis CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166657 v. (Contra Costa County ROBERT VONROSKI DAVIS, Super. Ct. No. 59410648) Defendant and Appellant.

In 1994, defendant Robert Vonroski Davis was convicted by a jury of the first-degree murder of one victim (Pen. Code §187; all further statutory references are to this code) (count one) and the willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder of a second victim (§§ 187, 664) (count two), with true findings that Davis personally used a firearm and had sustained a prior conviction. (§§ 667, subd. (a); 12022.5, subd. (a).) Davis was sentenced to consecutive terms of 35 years to life (count one) and a life term plus five years (count two). His convictions and sentences were affirmed by our colleagues in Division Four. (People v. Davis (April 24, 1996, A070153) [nonpub. opn.].) In April 2022, Davis filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6.1 After counsel was appointed and supplemental briefing was

1 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6, with no substantive changes in the statute. (Stats. 2022,

1

filed, the superior court summarily denied the petition on the basis that the jury instructions established Davis was not eligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law.2 Davis’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo); the brief raises no specific contentions but suggests we conduct an independent review of the record at our discretion. Relying on Delgadillo, we informed Davis of his right to file a supplemental letter or brief and he has filed such a letter. In his supplemental letter, Davis asks us to consider the following facts in support of his request for a resentencing hearing: he was not the person who committed these crimes, there was no weapon, there were no fingerprints that belonged to him, and the attempted murder victim (the “sole key” to his conviction) was on tape attempting to bribe Davis for truthful testimony. However, a posttrial motion for resentencing under section 1172.6 does not permit this court to reexamine all aspects of a conviction. It only permits us to determine whether a defendant was previously convicted on a legal theory that is no longer valid. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437) “ ‘amend[ed] the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a