Filed 12/22/23 P. v. Pickard CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This 

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN RAY PICKARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

B324268

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. LA009272

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Affirmed. 

John A. Colucci, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1992, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an 

amended information charging defendant and appellant Steven 

Ray Pickard with various offenses, including murder. (Pen Code,1

§ 187, subd. (a).) The amended information alleged the special 

circumstance that Pickard committed the murder while fleeing 

from having committed burglary. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The jury 

convicted Pickard of evading a peace officer in a manner 

proximately causing serious bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 2800.3) 

and second degree commercial burglary (§ 459), but could not 

reach a verdict on the murder count and special circumstance 

allegation. The trial court declared a mistrial. Upon retrial, a jury 

convicted Pickard of first degree murder and found the special 

circumstance allegation true. The court sentenced Pickard to life 

without the possibility of parole.

In 2021, Pickard filed a petition for resentencing under 

former section 1170.95.

2 The trial court appointed counsel on 

Pickard’s behalf. The prosecution filed a response to Pickard’s 

petition, and Pickard’s counsel filed a responsive brief arguing 

Pickard had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal 

Code. 

2 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered 

section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) 

There were no substantive changes to the statute. For the sake of 

simplicity, we will refer to the statute by its new code section. 

That section provides relief for certain individuals convicted of 

murder under the felony murder rule, natural and probable 

consequence doctrine, or any other theory of imputed-malice 

liability. (See § 1172.6.)
3

After hearing argument, the trial court denied Pickard 

relief, concluding although Pickard was convicted of murder 

under a felony murder theory, the record demonstrated as a 

matter of law he was the actual killer.

Pickard timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to 

represent him. On May 22, 2023, appellate counsel filed a brief 

raising no issues and requesting discretionary independent 

review of the record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 

216. 

On July 17, 2023, Pickard filed a supplemental appellant’s 

brief as a self-represented party. In his supplemental brief, 

Pickard admits: “Appellant was the driver of a vehicle which 

during a [p]olice pursuit from a traffic stop, struck another 

vehicle which crossed in front of [a]ppellant’s vehicle, causing the 

vehicle to flip [ ] numerous times, striking and killing Ms. Reyna 

Martinez-Duarte, a[n] innocent bystander sitting on a [b]us 

[b]ench.”

DISCUSSION

Pickard’s concession is dispositive. (See, e.g., Gelfo v. 

Lockheed Martin Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 34, 48 [“A judicial 

admission is a party’s unequivocal concession of the truth of a 

matter, and removes the matter as an issue in the case.”].) 

Although section 1172.6 provides relief for certain individuals 

convicted under the felony murder rule, that relief does not 

extend to individuals who were the actual killer. (See § 189, subd. 

(e)(1) [actual killers still liable for felony murder under current 

law]; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959 [section 1172.6 

relief extends to convicted murderers who could not be convicted 

under current law, but does not extend to actual killers].)

Because Pickard’s concession that he was the actual killer 
4

conclusively demonstrates as a matter of law he is ineligible for 

relief, we reject his various arguments that he is entitled to relief 

based on due process principles or recently-enacted changes to 

the felony murder rule under section 1172.6. 

In addition to rejecting the arguments Pickard raised in his

supplemental brief, we have exercised our discretion to 

independently review the record, and we conclude no arguable 

issues exist in light of Pickard’s concession that he was the actual 

killer. (See People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) 

DISPOSITION

The order denying relief is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, P. J.

We concur: 

COLLINS, J.

ZUKIN, J.