California Court of Appeal Dec 29, 2023 No. E081137Unpublished
Filed 12/29/23 P. v. Young CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E081137
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA019124)
RICHARD COMPTON YOUNG, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael R. Libutti,
Judge. Affirmed.
Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Richard Compton Young appeals the San Bernardino
County Superior Court’s denial of his Penal Code1 section 1172.62 petition for
resentencing. We will affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2003, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and found true three
personal use firearm enhancements, including that defendant personally discharged a
firearm causing death to the victim (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court sentenced
defendant to a total term of 100 years to life. We affirmed the judgment on appeal in a
nonpublished opinion, People v. Young (Jan. 23, 2007, E039122).
In August 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.6. The People filed an opposition, stating the court had already denied two
1172.6 petitions filed by defendant, and that the record of his conviction establishes his
ineligibility for relief because he was the actual killer of the victim. The court appointed
counsel and set an eligibility hearing. Defendant’s counsel did not file a response to the
People’s opposition. Defendant was not present at the hearing but was represented by
counsel, who submitted the matter. The court found defendant had failed to establish a
prima facie case for entitlement for relief and denied the petition. Defendant timely
noticed this appeal from the denial.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 Section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without substantive change in the text, effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For the sake of simplicity, we refer to the provision by its new numbering.
2
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that sets
forth statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication.
Counsel requests we exercise our discretion under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216 to conduct an independent review of the record in appeals from denials of
section 1172.6 petitions. Counsel considered the following issues: (i) whether the trial
court improperly made findings of disputed facts in reliance on this court’s opinion on
direct appeal; (ii) whether further proceedings are required because the trial court failed
to specify what parts of the record it relied upon in denying the petition; (iii) whether the
failure of defendant’s counsel to file a brief violated defendant’s statutory right to
counsel; and, (iv) whether true findings on personal use/discharge of a firearm as set forth
in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) of section 12022.53 conclusively negate allegations of a
petition.
We granted counsel’s request to augment the record to include excerpts from the
clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts filed in defendant’s appeal from the judgment that set
forth the instructions given to the jury.
Upon receipt of the opening brief, we notified defendant that his counsel had filed
a brief stating counsel had not found an arguable issue and that this court is not required
to conduct an independent review of the record but may exercise its discretion to do so.
We also invited defendant to file any arguments he deemed necessary.
3
In response to our invitation, defendant filed a Judicial Council form intended for
a writ of habeas corpus but used the case number assigned to this appeal and included the
title, “Supplemental Brief.” In that document, he argued that his “Actual Factual
Innocence” and his trial counsel’s submission of false evidence qualify him for
section 1172.6 resentencing relief. We are not persuaded.
Section 1172.6 makes clear that resentencing pursuant to that provision is
available to defendant if, and only if, three requirements are met:
(1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against him that allowed the
prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice was imputed to him
based solely on his participation in a crime;
(2) He was convicted of murder following a trial; and,
(3) He could not presently be convicted of murder because of changes to
sections 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.
The record establishes that the only requirement defendant met is that he was
convicted of murder following a trial. Accordingly, he is not eligible for resentencing
relief under section 1172.6 notwithstanding his claims of factual innocence and improper
admission of evidence by his trial counsel.
4
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J. We concur:
McKINSTER J.
CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition, finding that the defendant failed to meet the statutory requirements for resentencing because he was the actual killer.
Issues
Whether the trial court improperly made findings of disputed facts in reliance on the direct appeal opinion.
Whether further proceedings are required because the trial court failed to specify the record relied upon.
Whether the failure of defendant's counsel to file a brief violated the defendant's statutory right to counsel.
Whether true findings on personal use/discharge of a firearm under section 12022.53 negate petition allegations.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The record establishes that the only requirement defendant met is that he was convicted of murder following a trial. Accordingly, he is not eligible for resentencing relief under section 1172.6”
“The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.”