1

Filed 7/13/23 P. v. Landis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

v.

RICHARD HAROLD LANDIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

E080146

(Super.Ct.No. CR59243)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge. 

(Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Richard Harold Landis, in pro. per.; Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the 

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant and appellant Richard Harold Landis appeals the Riverside County 

Superior Court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.

1

 We 

will affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 1995, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder of Karen Beloz, who 

was found strangled and wrapped in a blanket in the backseat of a car that had been 

doused with gasoline and set on fire. (Pen. Code, § 187, count 1.) It also convicted him 

of a felony violation of Vehicle Code section 2800.2 (driving in willful disregard for the 

safety of persons or property while fleeing from a pursuing police officer, count 3), and 

misdemeanor reckless driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 23103, 

subdivision (a), count 4. The trial court found true the allegations defendant had suffered 

a Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), prior prison term as well as two prior 

convictions for serious and violent felonies coming under the three strikes law (§ 667). 

(People v. Landis (Jan. 24, 1997, E016856) [nonpub. opn.] (Landis I).)

In August 1995, the court sentenced defendant to a total indeterminate sentence of 

101 years to life. The sentence consisted of 75 years to life for the first degree murder 

conviction, a term of 25 years to life under the three strikes law for the Vehicle Code 

section 2800.2 felony violation, and a one-year term for the prison prior stemming from a 

1

 Section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without change in the text, 

effective June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For the sake of simplicity, we refer 

to the provision by its new numbering. All further statutory references are to the Penal 

Code.
3

vehicle theft in 1989. Defendant appealed the judgment and we affirmed. (Landis I, 

supra, E016856.)

In May 2022, we affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition for recall 

of his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126, which, by its terms, does not apply to 

persons convicted of any homicide offense. We also denied his request to remand his 

case for compliance with the procedures for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 

1171.1, which had rendered legally invalid his prison prior enhancement, finding it would 

undermine the Legislature’s purpose for establishing staggered deadlines for 

implementation of that statute. 

In July 2022, defendant filed a resentencing petition pursuant to section 1172.6.

The People and defendant’s counsel agreed defendant was the actual killer, that the jury 

was not instructed on either the felony murder or natural and probable consequences 

theory, and defendant was not eligible for resentencing relief. The court denied the 

petition. Defendant timely noticed this appeal from the denial.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that sets 

forth statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication. 

Counsel notes we have discretion under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 to 

conduct an independent review of the record in appeals from denials of section 1172.6 

petitions, and states she considered whether the trial court erred “to the extent the court 

denied the petition based in part on [the People’s] representation that [defendant] was 
4

ineligible for relief” because our opinion stated that defendant strangled and burned the 

victim.

Upon receipt of the opening brief, we notified defendant (i) that his counsel had 

filed a brief stating she had not found an arguable issue, (ii) that this court is not required 

to conduct an independent review of the record but may exercise its discretion to do so, 

and (iii) we invited him to file any arguments he deemed necessary.

In his handwritten letter submitted in response to our invitation, defendant raises 

two points in support of his claim. He argues section 1172.6 states that a hearing on a 

petition should take place “if there is any doubt of petitioner’s innocence” and concludes 

that he should either be granted a new trial or be released by this court in the interests of 

justice. In a related argument, defendant posits that former section 1170.03 (which was 

amended and renumbered to § 1172.1 by Stats 2022, ch. 58 § 9 (Assem. Bill No. 200), 

eff. June 30, 2022, and will be referred to by its current number) not only “clarifies” the 

court’s duty to determine whether defendant could presently be convicted of murder but 

also provides the court an opportunity to consider a defendant’s mitigating factors.

In support of his claims, defendant expresses a variety of concerns about his trial 

and conviction: no motive was established, his ex-wife had made threats against the 

victim and had motive to kill her, there was no DNA or blood evidence, and the statement 

of the only witness against him was obtained by the detectives by means of coercion. 

Defendant did not raise those issues in his appeal from the judgment (Landis I, supra, 

E016856.), and the time for seeking review of them has long since passed. (Cal. Rules of 
5

Court, rule 8.308(a) [notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after rendition of the 

judgment or the making of the order being appealed].) 

Defendant also asks this court to resentence him, suggesting a reduction of his 

charge to manslaughter and time served. He points to his conclusion that his ex-wife 

committed the murder, and notes as well that he suffers from several serious physical 

maladies, he has a large family that provides a huge support system, that (to his credit) he 

has completed a number of programs, has letters of recommendation from law 

enforcement personnel, and has proven to the Department of Corrections and the public 

that he is not a danger to society. Defendant’s efforts to obtain resentencing must be 

directed to the superior court in the county in which defendant was sentenced (§ 1172.1, 

subd. (a)) and, to the extent, if any, defendant may be eligible for elderly or medical 

parole, those efforts must be directed to the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation.

DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

J.

RAPHAEL

J.