Filed 5/17/21 P. v. Laws CA 2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, un der 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

resent encing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 1 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 11 70.95 petition (identified b elow). 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), 1 203.06, 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 enact ed 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 fir st or seco nd degree murder due to changes in sections 1 88 and 189 because , among other things, he w as 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 fel ony

- 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

, w e 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 a nother petition
for a writ of mandate regarding the trial court’s failure to address a

s ection 1170.95 petition purportedly filed in March 2020 se eking to

vac a te 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 t he court of appeals in [ Laws
II ].” We appointed appellate counsel for Laws . Citing People v.
Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, counsel filed a n opening brief4

setting out the pertinent procedural history, and a declaration indicating counsel had “revie wed 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 h e had 30 days to file a su pplemental 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 a ppeal 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 eligi ble 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 Miran da ( Miranda v. Arizona ( 1966 ) 384 U.S. 436 ), and his innocence of the charged crimes. Laws’ s upplemental 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 und er 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 co urt’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

WILLHITE, J. We concur:

MANELLA, P. J.

C OLLINS , J.