People v. Lewis CA2/5 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/21/23 P. v. Lewis CA2/5
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
    THE PEOPLE,                                                     B328722
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. TA144866)
    v.
    ARTHUR LEE LEWIS,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
    Los Angeles County, Carol J. Najera, Judge. Affirmed.
    California Appellate Project and Richard B. Lennon,
    Executive Director, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
    for Defendant and Appellant.
    No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    Arthur Lee Lewis appeals the trial court’s order denying
    his petition for vacatur of his murder conviction and resentencing
    under Penal Code section 1172.6.1
    In 2019, Lewis was convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
    (§ 192) The jury found that he personally discharged a firearm
    causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and that he committed the
    crime for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street
    gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). Lewis was sentenced to 21 years
    in prison.
    In 2021, this court affirmed the conviction. (People v. Lewis
    (Apr. 15, 2021, No. B302108) [nonpub. opn.].)
    In 2018, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) was
    enacted. The legislation amended sections 188 and 189, and
    added former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6). (Stats. 2018, ch.
    1015, §§ 2–4.) Senate Bill No. 1437 limited application of the
    felony murder rule and eliminated murder based on the natural
    and probable consequences doctrine. Through former section
    1170.95, Senate Bill No. 1437 also created a procedure by which a
    defendant previously convicted of murder under either of those
    theories could file a petition for resentencing. Former section
    1170.95 became effective on January 1, 2019.
    Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2021–2022
    Reg. Sess.) amended former section 1170.95 to expand its reach
    to defendants convicted of manslaughter, including persons
    convicted under a “theory under which malice is imputed to a
    person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.”
    (former § 1170.95, subd. (a); Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.)
    1 All further references are to the Penal Code.
    2
    In 2022, Lewis filed his section 1172.6 petition.2 The trial
    court appointed counsel and held a hearing. The court denied
    Lewis’s petition for failure to make a prima facie case because the
    jury found Lewis was the actual killer. Lewis timely appealed.
    Lewis’s counsel filed a brief indicating he could find no
    arguable issues to raise on appeal and requesting that this court
    follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 
    14 Cal.5th 216
    , 231–232.
    On August 15, 2023, we sent Lewis a letter informing him
    of his right to file a supplemental brief. Lewis personally filed a
    brief raising two issues: (1) while conceding that he is the actual
    killer, he argues that he is eligible for resentencing because he
    did not intend to kill the victim or act with malice, and (2) his due
    process rights were violated because the trial court sentenced
    him to the upper term rather than the middle term.
    We reject Lewis’s arguments and find that appellate
    counsel correctly concluded there are no arguable issues. First,
    Lewis was convicted as the actual killer. He is prima facie
    ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 because his conviction is
    still valid following the amendments to sections 188 and 189
    made on January 1, 2019. (People v. Garcia (2022) 
    82 Cal.App.5th 956
    , 969.) Second, a petition for resentencing filed
    pursuant to section 1172.6 is limited to the issues implicated by
    that statute (see, e.g., People v. DeHuff (2021) 
    63 Cal.App.5th 428
    , 438); a section 1176.2 petition is not the proper vehicle for
    other challenges to the trial court’s sentencing determinations.
    2 Effective June 30, 2022, former section 1170.95 was
    renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022,
    ch. 58, § 10.)
    3
    DISPOSITION
    The trial court’s order denying the petition for resentencing
    under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    MOOR, J.
    We concur:
    BAKER, Acting, P. J.
    KIM, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B328722

Filed Date: 12/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2023