Filed 7/9/21 P. v. Lawson CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KARNELL SEAN LAWSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B309899

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA145980)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Ricardo R. Ocampo, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon and Larry Pizarro, under appointment 

by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
2

Karnell Sean Lawson appeals from an order summarily 

denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 

section 1170.95.

1 We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 23, 2018, Lawson, along with multiple 

codefendants, was charged in an information with one count 

of special circumstances murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, 

subds. (a)(21), (a)(22)), three counts of attempted murder

(§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), one count of shooting at an occupied 

vehicle (§ 246), and one count of shooting at an inhabited 

dwelling (§ 246). Gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)) and 

firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) were alleged as to 

each count.

On November 25, 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, 

Lawson was convicted of one count of voluntary manslaughter 

(§ 192, subd. (a)) and three counts of attempted murder (§§ 664,

187, subd. (a)). On February 21, 2020, the trial court sentenced 

Lawson to a determinate term of 28 years, consisting of 21 years 

on the voluntary manslaughter count and consecutive terms of 

two years and four months on each of the attempted murder 

counts. The court dismissed the remaining counts against 

Lawson pursuant to the plea agreement based on his truthful 

testimony. 

On October 15, 2020, Lawson filed a petition for 

resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. In his petition, 

Lawson alleged that he had been charged in an accusatory 

pleading with murder under a theory of felony murder or the 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

natural and probable consequences doctrine; that he pleaded 

guilty or no contest to murder in lieu of going to trial because he 

believed he could have been convicted of murder under the 

felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine; and that he could not now be convicted of murder 

because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective 

January 1, 2019. Lawson also checked a box in his petition 

requesting the appointment of counsel. 

On November 4, 2020, the trial court summarily denied 

the section 1170.95 petition on the ground that Lawson failed 

to make prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. The 

court found that Lawson was not convicted of murder, but rather

was convicted of voluntary manslaughter pursuant to a no 

contest plea. The court also found that Lawson entered his plea 

long after the amendments to sections 188 and 189 took effect. 

On December 15, 2020, Lawson filed an appeal from the 

order denying his section 1170.95 petition. We appointed counsel 

to represent Lawson on appeal. After an examination of the 

record, counsel filed an opening brief which raised no issues and 

requested this court conduct an independent review of the record 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On March 30, 

2021, we advised Lawson that he had 30 days in which to submit 

a supplemental brief or letter setting forth any contentions or 

arguments he wished for this court to consider. Lawson did not 

submit a supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION

Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 

Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437) amended murder liability under 

the felony-murder rule and natural and probable consequences 

doctrine. (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843.) 
4

Senate Bill 1437 also added section 1170.95, which created a 

procedure whereby persons convicted of murder under a nowinvalid felony murder or natural and probable consequences 

theory may petition the sentencing court to vacate the murder 

conviction and resentence the petitioner on any remaining 

counts. A petitioner is eligible for relief under section 1170.95

if he or she: (1) was charged with murder by means of a charging 

document that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory 

of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine, (2) was convicted of first or second degree 

murder, and (3) could no longer be convicted of first or second 

degree murder due to the changes to sections 188 and 189 

effectuated by Senate Bill 1437. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).)

The point at which a sentencing court must appoint 

counsel to represent a defendant petitioning for relief under 

section 1170.95 and whether the court may rely on the record of 

conviction to find that a defendant has failed to make a prima 

facie showing of eligibility for relief are issues currently under 

review by the California Supreme Court. (See People v. Lewis

(2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1139–1140, review granted Mar. 18, 

2020, S260598.) Pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of these

issues, we need not resolve these questions because any possible 

error in summarily denying the petition was harmless. 

By its plain terms, section 1170.95 does not apply to 

convictions for crimes other than murder. (See, e.g., People v. 

Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194, 204 [“defendants charged with 

felony murder but convicted of voluntary manslaughter pursuant 

to a plea agreement are not eligible for relief under section 

1170.95”]; People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 918

[“section 1170.95 . . . makes resentencing relief available only 
5

to qualifying persons convicted of murder”]; People v. Turner

(2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428, 438 [“defendant who faces murder 

liability . . . , but pleads guilty to manslaughter in lieu of trial, is 

not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95”]; People v. 

Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985, 993 [section 1170.95 “does not 

mention, and thus does not provide relief to, persons convicted of 

manslaughter”]; People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884, 

887 [“plain language of (section 1170.95) is explicit; its scope is 

limited to murder convictions”].) Here, it is undisputed that 

Lawson was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, not murder, 

pursuant to his plea agreement. He was therefore statutorily 

ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. Because 

Lawson was ineligible for relief as a matter of law, appointed 

counsel could not have provided any meaningful assistance with 

respect to his section 1170.95 petition. (See People v. Daniel

(2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 666, 675, review granted Feb. 24, 2021, 

S266336 [failure to appoint counsel “upon the filing of a facially 

sufficient petition under section 1170.95 is susceptible to review 

for prejudice,” and is harmless if the record conclusively shows

the petitioner “ ‘was ineligible for relief as a matter of law’ ”].)

Assuming, without deciding, that a defendant is entitled 

to an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, 

supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, in an appeal from the denial of a section 

1170.95 petition, we have examined the entire record, and 

are satisfied appellate counsel has fully complied with his 

responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins

(2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278–284; Wende, at p. 443.)
6

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s November 4, 2020 order denying Karnell 

Sean Lawson’s Penal Code section 1170.95 petition is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

KALRA, J.*

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

LAVIN, J.

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.