Filed 5/17/21 P. v. Laws 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRIAN KEITH LAWS,

Defendant and Appellant.

      B307911

      (Los Angeles County

       Super. Ct. No. KA008785)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Bruce F. Marrs, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Brian Keith Laws appeals from a summary denial of his second 

postjudgment petition seeking vacation of his murder conviction and 

resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.951 and Senate Bill 

No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.; SB 1437). Laws contends the trial 

court erred in determining he was ineligible for resentencing. Finding 

no error, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

This is the third time we have considered this case. Our summary 

of the relevant factual and procedural history is drawn from our 1994 

opinion affirming Laws’ conviction and our April 2020 opinion affirming 

the trial court’s denial of Laws’ previous section 1170.95 petition 

(identified below). In 1993, a jury convicted Laws of one count each of 

first-degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and robbery (§ 211) and found true 

special circumstances and firearm allegations (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), 

12022.5, subd. (a), 1203.06, subd. (a)(1)). Laws was sentenced to life in 

prison without possibility of parole on the murder conviction, plus four 

years for the firearm enhancement. Sentencing was stayed as to the 

robbery conviction, and the firearm enhancement was stricken for 

purposes of sentencing. We affirmed the judgment in Laws’ direct 

appeal from the judgment. (People v. Laws (June 30, 1994, B075311 

[nonpub. opn.] (Laws I).) 

In 2019, Laws filed a petition for resentencing under section 

1170.95 and then newly enacted SB 1437, which provides that persons 

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3

convicted under theories of felony murder or murder under the natural 

and probable consequences doctrine, and who could no longer be 

convicted of murder following the enactment of SB 1437 may petition 

the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and resentence on any 

remaining counts. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) By that 

petition, Laws claimed he could not now be convicted of first or second 

degree murder due to changes in sections 188 and 189 because, among 

other things, he was not the actual killer. The trial court summarily 

denied the petition on the ground that Laws “‘[was] not entitled to relief 

as a matter of law,’ because he ‘. . . was the actual killer and was not 

convicted under a theory of felony-murder of any degree, or a theory of 

natural and probable consequences.’” (See People v. Laws (April 22, 

2020, B296014 [nonpub. opn.]) at p. 4 (Laws II).) For reasons explained 

in Laws II, we affirmed the trial court’s summary denial.

On May 6, 2020 (after we issued our decision in Laws II, but prior 

to issuance of the remittitur in July 2020), Laws filed another petition 

for a writ of mandate regarding the trial court’s failure to address a 

section 1170.95 petition purportedly filed in March 2020 seeking to 

vacate his murder conviction. The instant appeal follows the trial 

court’s summary denial of Laws’ second 1170.95 petition on the ground 

that, “[t]here [was] no substantial right [Laws was] attempting to 

enforce. These issues were addressed by the court of appeals in [Laws 

II].” 

We appointed appellate counsel for Laws. Citing People v. 

Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, counsel filed an opening brief 
4

setting out the pertinent procedural history, and a declaration 

indicating counsel had “reviewed the entire record,” and found no 

“arguable issues to raise on appeal.” Counsel stated he had explained 

his evaluation to Laws and informed him of his right to file a 

supplemental brief. On February 9, 2021, we advised Laws he had 30 

days to file a supplemental brief. 

On February 19, 2021, Laws filed a nine-page letter 

(supplemental brief), which we have read and considered. 

Pursuant to People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, review 

granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278, our obligation in reviewing an appeal 

from an order denying postconviction relief is to “evaluate [the] 

arguments presented” in the appellant’s supplemental brief. (Id. at p. 

1040.)

Laws’ supplemental brief contains no substantive arguments to 

support his claim that he “should be eligible for [relief under] SB 1437.” 

Instead, he argues he was wrongfully convicted based on the trial 

court’s improper admission of hearsay evidence, ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel, unlawful admission of his confession obtained in violation 

of Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), and his innocence 

of the charged crimes. Laws’ supplemental brief addresses issues not 

addressed in the order from which he appeals and does not address the 

basis for his claim that he is entitled to relief under section 1170.95. 

Rather, his arguments were previously considered and rejected in our 

opinions in Laws I and Laws II. Accordingly, there are no grounds 

upon which to disturb the trial court’s denial of section 1170.95 relief.
5

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J.

We concur:

MANELLA, P. J.

COLLINS, J.