California Court of Appeal May 30, 2024 No. E081359Unpublished
Filed 5/30/24 P. v. Satcher 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E081359
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVI1002158)
MELVIN LEE SATCHER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Miriam Ivy
Morton, Judge. Reversed.
Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Eric A. Swenson, Felicity A. Senoski, Marvin E. Mizell, Deputy Attorney
Generals, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Melvin Lee Satcher appeals from the trial court’s order
denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6. The People
concede there was error and that such error was not harmless. For the reasons set forth
post, we reverse the court’s order and remand the case for further proceedings.
On September 21, 2009, Sandi Duncan’s dead body was found. She was shot
twice. Near the body, there were fresh tire tracks and shoe prints. The shoe prints were
of two different patterns. One was a waffle pattern, the other had a ball in the front and a
zigzag in the back. The police checked Duncan’s cell phone records, which showed that
Duncan and defendant made several phone calls and “chirps” to each other. The very last
call to or from Duncan’s phone was a chirp from Duncan to defendant at 11:36 a.m.
About a week after the killing, a police officer stopped a car driven by Phillip
Franke with defendant in the passenger seat. The officer searched the car and under the
passenger seat he found a purse later identified as Duncan’s. The tires on the car
matched the tire tracks found near the body and during an interview with defendant, he
was wearing shoes that matched the ball-and-zigzag prints.
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 10, 2010, a jury found defendant guilty of: (1) first degree murder
under section 187 (count 1) and found true the allegation that in the commission of the
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
murder, a principal was armed with a firearm under section 12022, subdivision (a)(1);
and (2) second degree robbery under section 211 (count 2).
On January 14, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 25
years to life, plus one year for the firearm allegation. For the robbery, defendant was
sentenced to the upper term of five years, stayed pursuant to section 654.
On February 13, 2019, defendant filed an amended petition for resentencing
pursuant to former section 1170.95, with attached exhibits.
On March 6, 2019, the prosecution filed a motion to strike defendant’s amended
petition, arguing that Senate Bill No. 1437 and section 1170.95 were unconstitutional.
The prosecution attached this court’s opinion in defendant’s appeal of that conviction,
People v. Satcher, supra, E052777, as an exhibit to the motion.
On February 21, 2020, the court denied the petition, finding defendant did not
qualify for the relief requested and the petition did not establish a prima facie case for
resentencing.
On April 17, 2023, defendant filed a second petition for resentencing under section
1172.6, with attached exhibits, and requested the appointment of counsel.
On April 25, 2023, the court denied the petition at the prima facie stage, without
appointing counsel, finding the matter was “already adjudicated.”
On May 19, 2023, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
3
DISCUSSION
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN SUMMARILY DENYING DEFENDANT’S
SECTION 1172.6 PETITION
On appeal, defendant contends “the trial court erred in denying appellant’s 2023
petition on the basis that it was ‘already adjudicated’ ” The People “agree[] that the
superior court erred by failing to appoint counsel, and it also agrees the error was not
harmless under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818.” For the reasons set forth post,
we reverse the trial court’s denial and remand the case for further proceedings.
A. LEGAL BACKGROUND
Senate Bill No. 1437 amended “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.” (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015.) Senate Bill No. 775
“expand[ed] . . . authorization to allow a person who was convicted of murder under any
theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s
participation in a crime.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 1.) It also instructed the trial court that,
“Upon receiving a petition in which the information required by this subdivision is set
forth . . . if the petitioner has requested counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to
represent the petitioner.” (§ 1172.6 subd. (b)(3).)
4
A section 1172.6 denial “ ‘at the first stage of prima facie review . . . is appropriate
only if the record of conviction demonstrates that “the petitioner is ineligible for relief as
a matter of law.” [Citations.] This is a purely legal conclusion, which we review de
novo.’ ” (People v. Evrin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101.)
B. THE 2020 PETITION
Defendant argues the trial court incorrectly denied his 2020 petition because it
engaged in prohibited factfinding and because he was denied effective assistance of
counsel. The People interpret defendant’s explanation of the deficiencies in the 2020
proceeding as being appealed here in their own right, although a more charitable
interpretation is that defendant felt compelled to provide a full accounting of what
happened in 2020 because the error in 2023 is rooted in the errors of 2020.
Insofar as defendant asks this court to cure any errors made at the 2020 hearing,
we agree with the People that such a claim is not cognizable on appeal because it is
untimely. “A timely notice of appeal . . . is ‘essential to appellate jurisdiction.’ ” (People
v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094.) A notice of appeal in a criminal matter must
be filed within 60 days after rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being
appealed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a).) Otherwise, the judgment becomes final.
(People v. McKenzie (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1207, 1214.) Consequently, defendant’s
claims regarding the 2020 petition are not cognizable in this appeal.
5
C. THE 2023 PETITION
The court denied the 2023 petition, without appointing counsel, on the grounds
that the issue was “already adjudicated.” Defendant argues this was in error because “the
prior denial occurred before People v. Lewis” and “the current denial on the basis that the
issue was ‘already adjudicated’ was based on the prior court’s erroneous conclusion” as
“[n]othing in the instructions or verdict compelled a finding of ineligibility as a matter of
law.” The People agree that there was error, albeit for a slightly different reason.
Specifically, the People state “because appellant had filed a facially sufficient petition by
checking all of the required boxes and requested counsel to represent him, the court was
required to appoint counsel to represent appellant before it decided whether he had made
a prima facie case.” The People also concede that the error was not harmless, agreeing
with defendant that the existing record does not conclusively establish that he was
ineligible as a matter of law.
Because a denial at the first stage of prima facie review is appropriate only if the
record of conviction demonstrates that the petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of
law that is the pertinent issue before this court. In the present matter, the record
demonstrates that defendant was not ineligible as a matter of law. The jury was
instructed on the now-invalid theory of felony murder by a coparticipant, under
CALCRIM 540B. Accordingly, defendant has made a prima facie showing and is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Though the trial court was correct that the appellate
opinion did not discuss guilt under a natural and probable consequences theory, it also
6
did not discuss the felony murder instruction. As such, the significance of the felony
murder instruction was not “already adjudicated.” Given this, the trial court’s denial of
the petition on such grounds was in error, and the error was not harmless because the
record does not demonstrate ineligibility as a matter of law.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition is reversed. The matter is remanded for
further proceedings pursuant to section 1172.6, subdivisions (c) and (d).
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER Acting P. J.
We concur:
FIELDS J.
RAPHAEL J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court erred by summarily denying the defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition without appointing counsel or determining if the record of conviction established ineligibility as a matter of law.
Issues
Did the trial court err in denying the 2023 petition for resentencing without appointing counsel?
Did the trial court err in finding the petition was 'already adjudicated' based on a prior denial?
Is the defendant entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 1172.6?
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The People “agree[] that the superior court erred by failing to appoint counsel, and it also agrees the error was not harmless”
“the court was required to appoint counsel to represent appellant before it decided whether he had made a prima facie case.”
“the record demonstrates that defendant was not ineligible as a matter of law.”