People v. Reyes

Filed 11/16/23

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F085582 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF178201A) v.

JESUS ANTONIO REYES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Tiffany Organ- Bowles, Judge. C. Athena Roussos, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- INTRODUCTION Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). This amended both the felony-murder rule and the natural and probable

consequences doctrine to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. (People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707–708 (Strong).) Senate Bill No. 1437 also added Penal Code section 1170.95, 1 now renumbered as section 1172.6. This created a procedural mechanism for those convicted under the former law to seek retroactive relief. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); Strong, at p. 708; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).) In 2021, appellant Jesus Antonio Reyes pleaded no contest to a charge of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). Appellant admitted as true an enhancement allegation regarding the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced appellant to prison for 15 years to life. About 15 months after he was sentenced, appellant filed a petition for resentencing in the trial court, claiming he could not be convicted of murder based on the 2019 changes to the law. After giving the parties a chance to brief this issue, the court denied the petition, concluding appellant was ineligible for resentencing because his conviction had occurred after Senate Bill No. 1437 became effective. The question in this appeal is whether a criminal defendant who was convicted after Senate Bill No. 1437 became effective can nevertheless obtain resentencing relief under section 1172.6. We hold that this procedure does not apply to defendants who— like appellant in this case—were convicted under the current law. We therefore affirm the court’s order denying appellant’s petition. BACKGROUND In 2020, an information was filed alleging that appellant had murdered a person in violation of section 187, subdivision (a). It was alleged that appellant had killed the victim with malice aforethought, and he did it willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation.