Filed 10/6/22 P. v. Timothy Russell Law CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY RUSSELL LAW,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B319301

 Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA044324

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Lisa Mangay Chung, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________
2

Timothy Russell Law appeals the trial court’s denial of his 

resentencing petition. We affirm. Statutory citations are to the 

Penal Code.

We draw the facts from Law’s direct appeal. (See People v. 

Law (Oct. 12, 2011, B224654) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2007, Law 

fatally shot his roommate. He maintained the shooting was 

accidental. A jury convicted Law of second degree murder (§ 187) 

and found firearm allegations true (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c)). 

The court imposed a sentence of 35 years to life, composed of 15 

years to life for the murder and a consecutive 20 years for a 

firearm enhancement. 

In January 2022, Law filed a petition for resentencing 

under former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) alleging he had been 

convicted under the felony-murder rule or natural and probable 

consequences doctrine and requesting appointment of counsel. 

(Effective June 30, 2022, § 1170.95 was renumbered § 1172.6 

with no change in text (Stats 2022, ch. 58, § 10).) The trial court 

found the jury had not convicted Law under the felony-murder 

rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. It held 

Law failed to state a prima facie case for relief and summarily 

denied his petition without appointing counsel. 

Law filed a notice of appeal on March 24, 2022. 

Conforming to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Law’s 

counsel filed an opening brief containing a statement of facts but 

raising no issues. Counsel asked this court to review the record 

independently and to determine whether any arguable issues 

exist on appeal. Counsel also advised Law he had 30 days to file 

a supplemental brief. Law did not file a response.

We have examined the entire record of the proceedings and 

have found the trial court did not appoint counsel for Law. Law 
3

filed a facially sufficient petition and requested counsel. Section 

1172.6, subdivision (b)(3) required the court to appoint counsel at 

this stage. 

We review a denial of the right to counsel during the 

petition process for prejudice under People v. Watson (1956) 46 

Cal.2d 818, 836. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 973–

974.) To establish prejudice, Law must demonstrate that with 

counsel, it was reasonably probable the court would not have 

summarily denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing. 

(See id. at p. 974.) 

Even with counsel, Law could not make a prima facie case 

of eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6. Law admitted 

to shooting the victim himself, albeit accidentally. The 

prosecution did not proceed under a theory of felony murder, 

murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or 

other theory of imputed malice based on participation in a crime. 

(See § 1172.6, subd. (a).) Because Law is not eligible for relief 

under this statute as a matter of law, the trial court’s error was 

harmless.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the order. 

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

STRATTON, P. J. GRIMES, J.