Filed 4/2/24 P. v. Ranieri 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

STEPHEN RANIERI,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B332033

(Super. Ct. No. KA031043)

(Los Angeles County)

Stephen Ranieri appeals the trial court’s denial of his 

motion for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 

(formerly § 1170.95).1 Appellate counsel filed an opening brief 

informing this court that she reviewed the record and could not 

find any arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel requested 

that we send the opening brief to Ranieri and inform him of his 

right to file a supplemental letter or brief. We so informed 

Ranieri and he filed a supplemental letter. We have evaluated 

the supplemental letter and find no issues of merit. (People v. 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232 [when appellate counsel 

has found no arguable issues and the appellant submits a 

supplemental brief or letter, “the Court of Appeal is required to 

evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to 

issue a written opinion”].) Accordingly, we conclude that the 

court properly denied Ranieri’s resentencing motion, and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2

This appeal concerns the 1996 willful, premeditated, and 

deliberate attempted murder of Demond White following an 

altercation during a basketball game at a Covina park. When 

Ranieri retrieved a firearm from a blanket, White and the other 

basketball players ran away. Ranieri followed White, and shot at 

him.

A jury convicted Ranieri of willful, premeditated, and 

deliberate attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon. 

(§§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(2).) It also found that he 

personally used a firearm during commission of the crimes. 

(§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) In a separate proceeding, the trial court 

found that Ranieri suffered two prior serious felony and strike 

convictions. (§§ 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. 

(a)-(d).) Ranieri received a prison sentence of 45 years to life. We 

affirmed the conviction in People v. Ranieri, supra, B114080.

At Ranieri’s trial, the court instructed regarding the 

elements of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted 

murder, including the requirement of specific intent to kill. 

(CALJIC No. 3.31.) The court did not instruct regarding felony 

2 Our factual summary is derived from the unpublished 

opinion in Ranieri’s direct appeal. (People v. Ranieri (June 17, 

1999, B114080).)
3

murder, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any 

theory of imputed malice. 

On October 3, 2022, Ranieri brought a motion for 

resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. He asserted that his 

conviction rested upon a natural and probable consequences

doctrine. Ranieri also denied acting with malice or reckless 

indifference to human life.

The trial court denied the motion at the prima facie stage, 

stating that Ranieri was “the actual shooter.” The court 

concluded that the jury was not instructed regarding felony 

murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. It

therefore decided that Ranieri is ineligible for resentencing as a 

matter of law because his conviction did not rest upon any theory 

of imputed malice. 

Ranieri’s counsel has requested that we undertake an 

independent review of the record. We decline this invitation and 

instead briefly respond to the argument Ranieri raises in his 

supplemental brief. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, 

231-232.)

DISCUSSION

A person is entitled to resentencing relief pursuant to 

section 1172.6 if (1) “[a] complaint, information, or indictment 

was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to 

proceed under a theory of felony murder [or] murder under the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine”; (2) the petitioner 

“was convicted of murder”; and (3) the petitioner “could not 

presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to 

Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (Id., subd. 

(a)(1)-(3).) In January 2019, our Legislature amended section 188 

to provide that “in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in 
4

a crime shall act with malice aforethought” and that “[m]alice 

shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his . . . 

participation in a crime.” (Id., subd. (a)(3), as amended by Stats. 

2018, ch. 1015, § 2.) The amendment ensures that murder 

liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, 

did not act with the intent to kill, nor was not a major participant 

in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to 

human life. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.)

Effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature amended section 

1172.6 to include the crime of attempted murder under the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Stats. 2021, ch. 

551, § 2.)

The trial court may consider the defendant’s record of 

conviction, including the court’s own documents, in assessing 

whether he has made a prima facie case for relief pursuant to 

section 1172.6. (People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972

[record of conviction includes jury summations, jury instructions, 

verdict forms, and prior appellate opinions].) Here the court’s 

jury instructions rested upon willful, premeditated, and 

deliberate attempted murder, not any theories of imputed malice. 

The court also instructed regarding the requirement of specific 

intent to kill. (People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 547-

548.)

In his supplemental letter, Ranieri contends that his 

attorney generally failed to render effective assistance of counsel. 

Ranieri also claims that he merely shot his firearm into the air, 

not at White. Ranieri’s contentions have no bearing on this 

appeal which concerns section 1172.6 resentencing in convictions 

resting upon the felony murder or natural and probable 

consequences doctrines. Moreover, matters of the weight of the 
5

evidence are questions for the trier of fact. These matters were 

determined adversely to Ranieri at trial and we do not 

redetermine them. (People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327, 

378.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.
Jacqueline H. Lewis, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.