People v. Sands CA1/5

Filed 6/14/24 P. v. Sands CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169369 v. PHILIP LEO SANDS, (San Francisco City & County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. Nos. SCN195209, CT2131939)

Philip Leo Sands appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1172.6).1 His appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230, 232. After reviewing Sands’s supplemental brief, we affirm. Sands is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.

BACKGROUND

A.

Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), effective January 1, 2019, changed the law relating to accomplice liability for murder to better align punishment with individual culpability. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1(b), (f).) To that

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal

Code. 1

end, Senate Bill 1437 eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as to murder and narrowed the felony- murder exception to the malice requirement. (People v. Mancilla (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 854, 862.)

Specifically, Senate Bill 1437 amended section 189, which defines the degrees of murder, to limit murder liability based on felony murder or a natural and probable consequences theory to a person who: (1) was an actual killer; (2) aided and abetted the killer with the intent to kill; or (3) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as those terms are used in the statute defining felony-murder special circumstances. (§ 189, subd. (e); Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 3; accord, People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708 (Strong).) The definition of malice in section 188 was also amended to provide that “[m]alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3); Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 2.)