Filed 8/15/23 P. v. Teague CA2/1

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GINGIE MIIUAAN TEAGUE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B303076

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA024803)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Laura R. Walton, Judge. Affirmed. 

Diane E. Berley, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General and William H. Shin, Deputy 

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

Defendant Gingie Miiuaan Teague appeals from the order 

denying her Penal Code section 1170.95 petition (subsequently 

renumbered as section 1172.6 effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 

2022, ch. 58, § 10)).1 Appointed counsel requested that this court 

review the record pursuant to the procedures set forth in People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After notice pursuant to 

Wende, supra, at p. 442 of her right to file a supplemental brief, 

Teague did not file a supplemental brief. On August 21, 2020, 

we dismissed Teague’s appeal as abandoned based on People v. 

Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023. (People v. Teague (Aug. 21, 

2020, B303076) [nonpub. opn.].) The Supreme Court later 

ordered the opinion in Cole vacated. 

The Supreme Court also ordered us to vacate our prior 

opinion and reconsider whether to exercise our discretion to 

conduct an independent review of the record or provide any relief 

in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232–233 

and footnote 6 (Delgadillo). We vacated our prior opinion. We 

now choose to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent 

review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. 

BACKGROUND

Teague stabbed her 82-year-old neighbor, George Samuel, 

with a knife and took his radio. Samuel died from his injuries. 

After a bench trial, the court convicted Teague of second degree 

murder and found that she personally used a knife in the 

commission of the murder. The court sentenced Teague to 

16 years to life in prison. 

1 All undesignated statutory citations are to the 

Penal Code. 
3

On May 6, 2019, Teague filed a petition for resentencing 

under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), which the 

People opposed. The trial court denied Teague’s resentencing 

petition because, among other reasons, she was the actual killer. 

Teague timely appealed. 

After the Supreme Court remanded the case to this court, 

respondent filed a letter requesting this court send appellant 

notice that complies with Delgadillo or independently review the 

record. Teague’s counsel agreed. No party filed a supplemental 

brief upon remand. Because our prior notice was “suboptimal” 

under Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 222, we now 

independently review the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d 436.

DISCUSSION

“In Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate 

Bill 1437), the Legislature significantly narrowed the scope of the 

felony-murder rule. It also created a path to relief for defendants 

who had previously been convicted of murder on a felony-murder 

theory but who could not have been convicted under the new law. 

Resentencing is available under the new law if the defendant 

neither killed nor intended to kill and was not ‘a major 

participant in the underlying felony [who] acted with reckless 

indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of 

[Penal Code] Section 190.2.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Strong (2022) 

13 Cal.5th 698, 703.) 

“A section 1170.95 petition must show that: ‘(1) A 

complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the 

petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory 

of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is 
4

imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in 

a crime . . . . [,] [and] [¶] (2) The petitioner was convicted of 

murder . . . following a trial . . . . [,] [and] [¶] (3) The petitioner 

could not presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes 

to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.’ 

[Citation.]” (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 51.)

As a matter of law, Teague is not eligible for resentencing 

relief because the record of conviction establishes that she was 

the actual killer. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233 [actual 

killer and only participant in the killing not entitled to any relief 

under § 1172.6].) The trial court found that Teague personally 

used a knife to kill Samuel. She was the only defendant charged 

in the information with Samuel’s death. Therefore, 

notwithstanding the changes to sections 188 and 189, Teague 

was convicted under a still valid theory of murder. We have 

exercised our discretion to review the entire record independently 

(Delgadillo, supra, at pp. 232–233 & fn. 6), and find no arguable 

issue on appeal. 

DISPOSITION

The order denying Teague’s petition for resentencing is 

affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. WEINGART, J.