1

Filed 1/19/23 P. v. Massey CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EUGENE JAMAR MASSEY,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B323182

(Super. Ct. No. TA039715)

(Los Angeles County)

Eugene Jamar Massey appeals an order denying his 

petition for resentencing pursuant to former Penal Code section

1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6).

1 The resentencing 

petition concerned his 2001 conviction of willful, deliberate, and 

premeditated murder with a finding of personal firearm use 

during commission of the murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.5, 

subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Massey to a prison term of 

35 years to life. Massey appealed and raised evidentiary and 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

instructional arguments. We rejected the arguments and 

affirmed the conviction on appeal. (People v. Massey (Jan. 8, 

2002, B148256) [nonpub. opn.].)

Evidence presented at Massey’s jury trial established this: 

In 1997, Massey and Darryl Johnson argued during a dice game. 

Massey left but returned shortly with a gun. Massey threatened 

Johnson who remained inside his residence, refusing to come 

outside. The following day, Massey approached Johnson who was 

standing outside speaking with friends. Massey pulled a gun 

from his waistband and shot Johnson in the chest. Johnson died 

shortly thereafter. Eyewitnesses saw the shooting and Massey 

running from the scene.

On January 5, 2022, Massey filed a petition for 

resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. The petition alleged 

that Massey’s murder prosecution rested upon theories of felony 

murder, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or 

implied malice. The trial court appointed counsel for Massey and 

received briefing. The court then denied the petition because 

Massey was the actual killer who personally used a firearm to 

murder the victim. The court determined that Massey’s 

prosecution did not rest upon felony murder or any theories of 

implied malice; thus, Massey is ineligible for section 1172.6 

resentencing relief. Massey now appeals this decision.

We appointed counsel to represent Massey in this appeal. 

After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441, raising no 

issues. In response to counsel’s brief, we advised Massey that he 

had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or 

issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We have not received a 

response from him.
3

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.
4

Tammy Chung Ryu, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.