People v. Thomas CA3

Filed 3/25/24 P. v. Thomas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099379

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FE009080)

v.

WILLIAM THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William Thomas filed a petition for resentencing on his murder conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court denied the petition, finding defendant failed to make a prima facie showing for relief.

1 Statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. Defendant originally filed his petition in May 2022 under former section 1170.95, which was renumbered to section 1172.6 without substantive change effective June 30, 2022.

1

Defendant appealed the order denying him postconviction relief, and, although this is not his first appeal as of right, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising issues generally unrelated to the trial court’s denial of his resentencing petition. Having considered defendant’s supplemental brief in accordance with Delgadillo, we shall affirm.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In 2020, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and arson. He was sentenced to 50 years to life in state prison, and the trial court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). (People v. Thomas (Oct. 10, 2022, C091728) [nonpub. opn.] (Thomas).) Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed the judgment. (Ibid.) In May 2022, defendant filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing declaring that a complaint, information, or indictment was filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed on a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, that he was convicted of murder following a trial, and that he could not presently be convicted of murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019. Defendant requested the appointment of counsel. The trial court appointed counsel and received briefing from the parties. The People opposed the petition, arguing defendant was not entitled to relief as a matter of law because at the time he was tried and convicted for murder the relevant statutes were