People v. Figueroa CA2/4

Filed 11/14/23 P. v. Figueroa CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B324327

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA070082 v.

BRIAN FIGUEROA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Martin L. Herscovitz, Judge. Affirmed. Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2013, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Brian Figueroa and his codefendant, Bronco Corzo, of the second degree murder of Justin Dunlap. (Pen Code,1 § 187, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Figueroa to 30 years to life in state prison, consisting of a term of 15 years to life, doubled based on a prior strike conviction. On direct appeal, a different panel of this court affirmed the judgments against both defendants. (People v. Corzo et al. (Jul. 16, 2015, B254650 [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, Figueroa filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95).2 The trial court appointed counsel for Figueroa and issued an order to show cause. The prosecution filed a response, arguing although the jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine (as an alternate theory to the prosecution’s main argument that Figueroa was guilty of implied-malice murder), the evidence summarized in this court’s opinion resolving Figueroa’s direct appeal demonstrated he remained guilty of second degree murder under current law. Figueroa filed a reply arguing, among other things, the trial court should not consider

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the statute by its new code section. That section provides relief for certain individuals convicted of murder under the felony murder rule, natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any other theory of imputed-malice liability. (See § 1172.6.)