Filed 9/19/24 P. v. Watson CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SAMUEL R. WATSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B336720

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. SA100813)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Christopher W. Dybwad, Judge. Affirmed.

Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defendant and Appellant.

No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________
2

INTRODUCTION

In 2020, defendant Samuel R. Watson was charged with 

murder and elder abuse causing death. In 2022, he pleaded no 

contest to second degree murder pursuant to a plea agreement. 

In 2023, Watson filed a petition for resentencing under Penal 

Code1 section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition and 

Watson now appeals that decision. His appellate counsel filed a 

brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 

identifying no issues on appeal.

Watson filed a supplemental brief raising certain 

contentions about his conviction, but none concerns the merits of 

his resentencing petition. The issues raised by Watson are 

outside the scope of a section 1172.6 resentencing proceeding and 

fail to demonstrate any error in the court’s denial of his petition.

Accordingly, we affirm.

POSTCONVICTION RELIEF UNDER SECTION 1172.6

We begin by briefly summarizing section 1172.6, which was 

enacted in 2018 as part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. 

Sess.).

2 The legislation’s overall purpose was “to amend the 

felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is 

not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act 

with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Section 1172.6 was originally codified as section 1170.95. 

The Legislature renumbered the statute as section 1172.6, with 

no change in text, effective June 30, 2022. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, 

§ 10.)
3

underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human 

life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) To accomplish this, 

the bill added section 188, subdivision (a)(3) “to amend the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine,” and added section 

189, subdivision (e) “to amend the felony-murder rule.” (People v. 

Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843.) These amendments to 

sections 188 and 189 became effective January 1, 2019. (Stats. 

2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2, 3.)

Section 1172.6 allows defendants convicted of murder 

under a theory now precluded by section 188 or 189 to petition to 

vacate their convictions and be resentenced on any remaining 

counts. Defendants must initially make a prima facie showing of 

eligibility for relief by demonstrating they can satisfy three 

criteria: first, that they were charged by a complaint, 

information, or indictment “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 imputed to a person based solely on that 

person’s participation in a crime” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(1)); second, 

that they “w[ere] convicted of murder . . . or accepted a plea offer 

in lieu of a trial at which [they] could have been convicted of 

murder” (id., subd. (a)(2)); and third, that they “could not 

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

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

(a)(3)). If the defendant makes a prima facie showing satisfying 

all three criteria, the resentencing court must issue an order to 

show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing at which the burden 

is on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 

the defendant is ineligible for resentencing. (§ 1172.6, subds. (c), 

(d).)
4

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The charges against Watson were filed after the 

amendments to sections 188 and 189 enacted by Senate Bill

No. 1437 became effective in 2019. On December 8, 2020, the 

People charged Watson with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and elder 

abuse causing death (§ 368, subd. (b)(1), (3)), alleging that on 

May 23, 2018, he killed George Leon McKinney with malice 

aforethought. The People charged Watson with an enhancement 

under section 667.9, subdivision (a), alleging that McKinney was 

65 years old and Watson knew or reasonably should have known 

this fact. The People also charged Watson with having suffered 

two prior convictions for a “serious and/or violent felony” within 

the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (d) and 1170.12, 

subdivision (b) and for “a serious felony” within the meaning of 

section 667, subdivision (a)(1).

On September 15, 2022, Watson agreed to plead no contest 

to one count of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) with a 

minimum imprisonment term of 15 years and a maximum term 

of life. Under the plea agreement, the charges under section 368, 

subdivision (b)(1) and the allegations of prior convictions were 

dismissed. The court found a factual basis for the plea and 

accepted both the plea and Watson’s waivers on the record, 

finding them to have been knowingly, intelligently, and 

voluntarily made.

That same day, in accordance with the plea agreement, the 

court imposed a prison sentence of 15 years to life.

On August 8, 2023, Watson filed a resentencing petition 

under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel to 

represent Watson on the petition.
5

The court heard argument on January 22, 2024, and 

summarily denied the petition on the ground that Watson had 

pleaded no contest to second degree murder in 2022, after the 

changes to the law addressed in section 1172.6 had taken effect.

The court further found the record of conviction showed Watson 

was the actual killer, as he was the only person charged in the 

information, and section 1172.6 does not provide relief to a 

defendant who personally killed the victim. (See People v. Strong 

(2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710 [“Senate Bill [No.] 1437 relief is 

unavailable if the defendant was . . . the actual killer”].) The 

court issued a written ruling on January 24, 2024, denying the 

petition on these grounds.

Watson filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Watson in this appeal. 

Watson’s attorney filed a brief raising no issues and requesting 

that we exercise our discretion to independently review the 

record for error pursuant to People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 

Cal.5th 216. In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court established 

procedures for cases in which counsel determines that an appeal 

from an order denying postconviction relief lacks merit. In such 

cases, “(1) counsel should file a brief informing the court of that 

determination, including a concise recitation of the facts bearing 

on the denial of the petition; and (2) the court should send, with a 

copy of counsel’s brief, notice to the defendant, informing the 

defendant of the right to file a supplemental letter or brief and 
6

that if no letter or brief is filed within 30 days, the court may 

dismiss the matter.”3 (Id. at pp. 231-232.)

On July 18, 2024, we received a supplemental letter brief 

from Watson, in which he stated that he “slapped” a homeless 

man who had insulted him and the man died three days later. 

He further stated that his victim had cocaine in his system and 

an enlarged heart. Watson asserted that he pleaded guilty 

because his attorney told him that if he were to be convicted it 

would be considered his third strike and the judge would not 

remove any of his prior strikes. He contends he accepted the plea 

agreement while on “psych medication” and his attorney “never 

filed anything to know if the judge would strike any of my 

strikes.”

Where the defendant files a supplemental brief, we are 

“required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that 

brief and to issue a written opinion. The filing of a supplemental 

brief or letter does not compel an independent review of the 

entire record to identify unraised issues.” (People v. Delgadillo, 

supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

Watson appears to argue that his conduct was not severe 

enough to justify the charges asserted against him, that his 

consent to the plea agreement was invalid because he was under 

medication at the time, and his attorney was ineffective for not 

confirming whether the court would consider striking any of his 

3 On July 1, 2024, this court sent a notice to Watson 

informing him of his right to file a supplemental brief. In a 

declaration submitted with the appellant’s brief, Watson’s 

counsel averred that he would send Watson a copy of the brief

and had already sent Watson the transcripts of the record on 

appeal.
7

prior strikes. None of these arguments is cognizable in a section 

1172.6 proceeding, the purpose of which “ ‘is to give defendants 

the benefit of amended sections 188 and 189’ ” and “ ‘not to 

provide a do-over’ ” on unrelated issues regarding their 

conviction. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947.) 

Watson does not argue that he was charged with murder under a 

theory that is now invalid as a result of the amendments to 

sections 188 and 189, nor does he dispute the trial court’s finding 

that he was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 because he 

pleaded guilty after those statutory amendments had taken 

effect. Watson also does not challenge the trial court’s finding 

that he was charged as the actual killer, and admits that he 

alone struck McKinney. Thus, Watson’s challenge to the trial 

court’s order necessarily fails. Finally, we decline counsel’s 

request that we independently review the record, as nothing 

before us suggests such an exercise is necessary. (People v. 

Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
8

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order denying Watson’s petition for 

resentencing is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

WEINGART, J.

We concur:

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

KELLEY, J.*

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.