Filed 9/21/23 P. v. George 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

KEENAN GEORGE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B323545

 Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA282283

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Shelly B. Torrealba, Judge. Affirmed.

Karyn H. Bucar, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee and Michael C. 

Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

Keenan George appeals the trial court’s denial of his 

petition for resentencing. He also argues he is entitled to 
2

resentencing under Senate Bill No. 620 (SB 620) and Assembly 

Bill No. 333 (AB 333). We affirm and hold he is not entitled to 

resentencing under either SB 620 or AB 333. Statutory citations 

are to the Penal Code.

A jury convicted George of the attempted murder of Sandro 

Gutierrez. The jury found true allegations George had personally 

discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury and 

personally inflicted great bodily injury on Gutierrez. The jury 

also convicted George of assault with a firearm on a second 

victim, Christopher Alexander. The jury further found George 

committed both offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or 

in association with a criminal street gang. The trial court 

sentenced George to a term of 44 years to life. George appealed, 

and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. George (Jul. 23, 

2007, B187180 [nonpub. opn.].)

In May 2022, George filed a petition for resentencing under 

section 1172.6, previously section 1170.95. Section 1172.6 

provides the mechanism by which defendants may seek the relief 

offered by Senate Bill No. 1437, effective January 1, 2019 (2017–

2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1437). (Ibid.; § 1172.6.) SB 1437 narrowed 

the scope of murder liability of those persons who are not the 

actual killer and did not intend to kill. (People v. Strong (2022) 

13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708.) Persons previously convicted who could 

not be convicted under these new laws, such as those convicted on 

theories of felony murder or the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine, may seek retroactive relief under section 

1172.6. (§ 1172.6.) Upon the filing of a facially sufficient petition 

requesting appointment of counsel, a trial court must appoint 

counsel and hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner 

has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief. (§ 1172.6, 
3

subds. (b)(3) & (c).) If the petitioner makes this showing, the 

court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether 

relief is warranted. (§ 1172.6, subd. (d).) 

George’s petition was facially sufficient and requested 

counsel. Rather than appointing counsel, the trial court reviewed 

documents in the case file, including the information, the jury 

instructions, the abstracts of judgment, and our unpublished 

opinion affirming the judgment. Based on this review, the trial 

court determined the jury had found George, the sole defendant, 

was the actual shooter and so was ineligible for relief under 

section 1172.6. Accordingly, the trial court summarily denied the 

petition.

George filed a second petition in July 2022. The trial court 

summarily denied this petition as well, noting it added nothing to 

the previous petition.

George appealed the denial of his first petition.

As the prosecutor concedes, the trial court erred in

summarily denying the petitions without appointing 

counsel. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961-972 

(Lewis).) However, this does not result in automatic reversal as 

George urges. We will reverse only if it is reasonably probable 

the defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had 

the error not occurred. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 972-974.)

George cannot show a different result was likely. The trial 

court’s analysis was correct. (See People v. Mancilla (2021) 67 

Cal.App.5th 854, 863-864 (Mancilla) [failure to appoint counsel is 

harmless error if jury convicted defendant under a valid 

theory].) The jury found George had “a specific intent to kill 

unlawfully another human being.” (CALJIC No. 8.66.) It also 

found George personally discharged the firearm causing great 
4

bodily injury. The trial court did not instruct the jury on theories 

of felony murder, the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine, or any other theory under which malice is imputed to a 

person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. We 

grant the prosecutor’s request for judicial notice of the jury 

instructions. The jury convicted George under still-valid theories. 

He is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. 

George argues there is evidence he may not have been the 

shooter. This misunderstands our review under section 

1172.6. Petitioners are eligible for relief only if they were 

convicted under a theory that is no longer valid. (Mancilla, 

supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 866-867.) George identifies no 

theory like that. 

The jury could not have voted as it did unless it were 

convinced George personally had fired the injuring gun. (See 

People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 54-56.) We reach this 

conclusion without weighing evidence or making credibility 

determinations. (See People v. Pickett (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 982, 

990.)

George maintains he is entitled to resentencing under SB

620 and AB 333 because his judgment is not final, citing to People 

v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152. In Padilla, the high court held 

that new laws reducing punishment should be applied in 

resentencing when a final conviction is vacated. (Id. at pp. 161-

163) George’s conviction has not been vacated. His judgment 

remains final. He is ineligible for relief under SB 620 and AB

333. (People v. Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326 [SB 

620 inapplicable to final convictions]; People v. Ramos (2022) 77 

Cal.App.5th 1116, 1127 [AB 333 inapplicable to final 

convictions].)
5

DISPOSITION

We affirm the order. 

WILEY, J.

We concur: 

STRATTON, P. J. 

VIRAMONTES, J.