People v. Lopez CA6

Filed 2/9/24 P. v. Lopez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H050284 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS091855B)

v.

RAUL LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Raul Lopez appeals from the denial of a petition for resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6). (All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The trial court determined that Lopez failed to make a prima facie case for relief based upon the preliminary hearing transcript in the underlying criminal prosecution. Lopez argues that the trial court erred in considering the preliminary hearing transcript and in concluding based on that transcript that he failed to make a prima facie case for relief. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court erred in concluding that Lopez failed to make out a prima facie case, and we accept that concession.

We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of 1

Judicial Administration, section 8.1 (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)

In November 2009, Lopez and his codefendant Jorge Luis Meza Ruiz were charged with a murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang. In February 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, the prosecution amended the information to add counts of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and street terrorism (§186.22, subd. (a)). With respect to the voluntary manslaughter count, the amended information alleged gang and firearm enhancements (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12021.5, subd. (b)). Lopez pleaded guilty to the voluntary manslaughter and street terrorism charges as well as admitting the gang and firearm enhancements. The trial court imposed a stipulated sentence of 25 years on the voluntary manslaughter count with a three-year sentence on the street terrorism stayed pursuant to section 654. In March 2022, Lopez petitioned for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-1018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1437) on the ground that he was not the actual killer and did not have an intent kill, and he had been charged with murder under a natural and probable consequences theory. Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 amended the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequence 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.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) In addition to amending two homicide statutes (id., §§ 2-3 [amending sections 188 and 189]), SB 1437 added what is now section 1172.6, which allows convicted murderers to obtain retroactive relief based on SB 1437’s restrictions on murder convictions. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959 (Lewis).) In 2021, the Legislature amended this provision, “[c]larif[ying] that persons who were convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter under a theory of felony murder and the natural [and] probable consequences doctrine are permitted the same relief as those persons convicted of murder under the same theories.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 1, subd. (a).)