People v. Pugh CA2/1

Filed 2/22/24 P. v. Pugh CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B329084

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA037534) v.

WILBERT PUGH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John J. Lonergan, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Richard D. Miggins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Ron Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and David A. Wildman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

In 1998, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Wilbert Pugh of the murder of Corie Williams and the attempted murder of Tyrone Lewis. “Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed Senate Bill [No.] 1437 ‘to amend 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 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.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.) Senate Bill No. 1437 also added former Penal Code1 section 1170.95, now section 1172.6, providing the procedure for a defendant convicted of felony murder or murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine to request resentencing relief. (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 843.) The Legislature subsequently amended section 1170.95 to include attempted murder. (People v. Whitson (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 22, 30.) This is an appeal from the resentencing court’s denial of Pugh’s resentencing petition after an order to show cause hearing (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3)). In a prior appeal, we reversed the resentencing court’s conclusion that Pugh was ineligible as a matter of law for resentencing on his murder conviction. (People v. Pugh (Mar. 23, 2021, B301904) [nonpub. opn.].) In that appeal, we did not consider Pugh’s attempted murder conviction because the prior appeal predated inclusion of attempted murder in former section 1170.95.