Filed 3/22/21 P. v. Russell CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KARL JOSEPH RUSSELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D078167

 (Super. Ct. No. SCN217314)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Harry M. Elias, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General and A. Natasha Cortina, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A complete statement of facts in this case is contained in this court’s 

opinion, People v. Russell (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 981, 984–987 (Russell I). 

Briefly, on the night of September 5, 2006, a shadowy figure was seen acting 

suspiciously outside Klaas and Golda Meurs’ residence in Oceanside. He was 
2

observed to then enter the Meurses’ house. The residents of the house were 

not at home. Later, Carlsbad Police Sergeant Mickey Williams was in his 

marked patrol car when he observed the Meurses’ white Oldsmobile stopped 

at a red light. Defendant Karl Joseph Russell was driving it. Williams saw 

defendant rapidly accelerate before the light changed. A chase ensued and 

ended when defendant crashed the Oldsmobile into the side of a pickup truck 

driven by Rodrigo Vega. Vega was killed. When the officer approached 

defendant at the scene of the crash, defendant threatened him, stated he had 

a gun, and ran away. He was later found hiding at the side of an office 

building.

PROCEDURAL STATEMENT

On June 17, 2008, the District Attorney for San Diego County filed an 

amended information charging defendant with first degree murder in 

violation of Penal Code1 section 187, subdivision (a) (count 1), evading an 

officer, causing death in violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.3 (count 2), 

residential burglary in violation of section 459 (count 3), and vehicle theft in 

violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (count 4). The 

information alleged defendant personally used a deadly weapon in the 

commission of the murder under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), and 

personally inflicted great bodily injury in the commission of the theft under 

section 12022.7, subdivision (a). 

On June 25, 2008, defendant was convicted of first degree murder, 

evading an officer causing death, burglary, and vehicle theft. The deadly 

weapon and great bodily injury allegations were found true. Defendant was 

sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. 

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise 

specified.
3

He appealed his conviction. We denied his appeal, and the California 

Supreme Court denied review on December 1, 2010. (Russell I, supra, 187 

Cal.App.4th 981.)

On March 20, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under 

section 1170.95 alleging he had been convicted of murder under the felony 

murder rule and could not now be convicted of murder because of the changes 

made in the law. Counsel appointed for defendant argued the trial court was 

prohibited from using the facts from the appeal filed on the conviction. In 

response, the prosecutor argued defendant was not entitled to relief because 

he was the actual killer. On October 16, 2020, the trial court ruled it could 

use an appellate court’s opinion to establish the facts2 and, after examining 

this court’s opinion, it determined defendant was the actual killer, thus 

making him ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. 

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). 

Counsel states he has thoroughly reviewed the record and consulted with 

Appellate Defenders. He has summarized the proceedings and facts and has 

provided citations to the record. Counsel does not see any issues which if 

successful would modify or reverse defendant’s convictions. He asks this 

court to independently review the record per Wende and Anders. 

In order to assist the court in its independent review, counsel directs 

our attention to the denial of defendant’s request to reduce his sentence 

under section 1170.95. He specifically asks that we examine under Anders

2 This issue is pending before the Supreme Court in People v. Lewis

(2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128, review granted, March 18, 2020, S260598.
4

whether (1) the procedural protections under Wende and Anders extend to an 

appeal from a trial court’s order denying a defendant’s petition under section 

1170.95; (2) whether the reviewing court in any event should conduct an 

independent review of the denial of section 1170.95 benefits; and (3) whether 

the denial of the petition was prejudicial. We requested supplemental 

briefing on this issue and the parties have responded. 

After we issued our order requesting supplemental briefing on the 

necessity of our independent review of the record, defendant filed a 

supplemental brief of his own. The Attorney General contends, and we agree, 

that our question whether we should conduct an independent review of the 

record is moot because we must conduct an independent review and prepare 

an opinion discussing the defendant’s issues in any event. 

Defendant does not point to error in the court’s denial of the petition. 

He argues instead against the felony murder rule and its application here, 

referring to Justice McIntyre’s dissenting opinion in the direct appeal that 

the felony murder escape rule did not apply to the circumstances here. 

(Russell I, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at pp. 996–997 [dis. opn., McIntyre J.].) 

We considered and rejected that position in 2010. Defendant also claims that 

the cause of the victim’s death was not his reckless driving but the victim’s 

failure to wear a seatbelt; that he was too intoxicated to form the specific 

intent to take anything permanently from the Meurses’ house; that the 

prosecution was biased against him; and other arguments related either to 

the conduct of the trial in 2008 or the parameters of the felony murder rule in 

general. 

Defendant’s conviction was final, however, in 2010 when it reached 

final disposition. (See People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 935.) 

Section 1170.95 does not authorize a review of the validity of the conviction 
5

itself. Defendant’s claim that he should not have been found guilty of felony 

murder is not a basis for relief under section 1170.95. Defendant was the 

sole participant in the death of the victim, during defendant’s commission of 

and escape from his felony residential burglary. The trial court did not err in 

denying his petition under section 1170.95. (See People v. Gallo (2020) 57 

Cal.App.5th 594, 599 [sole killer not eligible for resentencing under section 

1170.95].)

Defendant has been represented on this appeal by competent counsel.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

GUERRERO, J.