Filed 3/23/21 P. v. Campos CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PASQUAL CAMPOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B308581

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA316087-09)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Larry P. Fidler, Judge. Affirmed. 

Cindy Brines, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________
2

Pasqual Campos appeals from a postjudgment order 

denying his motion for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 

section 1170.95.1 No arguable issues have been identified 

following review of the record by Campos’s appointed appellate 

counsel or by Campos in his supplemental letter brief to this 

court. We also have identified no arguable issues after our own 

independent review of the record. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A jury in 2014 convicted Campos of two counts of 

conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, subd. (a), 187) with a gang 

enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), one count of conspiracy to 

commit assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§§ 182, subd. (a), 

245, subd. (b)) with a gang enhancement, and four counts of 

street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced 

Campos to concurrent indeterminate state prison terms of 

25 years to life on the two counts of conspiracy to commit murder 

and stayed the gang enhancements and sentences on all other 

counts.

On July 1, 2019 Campos, representing himself, filed a 

petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 checking most of 

the boxes on a preprinted form. The court appointed counsel to 

represent Campos. The district attorney’s office filed an 

opposition memorandum, arguing Campos was not eligible for 

resentencing under section 1170.95 because, notwithstanding the 

check marked allegations in the petition, he had not been 

convicted of first or second degree murder, a threshold 

requirement for relief under the statute. Counsel for Campos 

filed two responding memoranda, citing general principles 

1 Statutory references are to this code.
3

regarding determination of petitions for resentencing under 

section 1170.95, but did not directly address the argument 

Campos was ineligible for resentencing because he had not been 

convicted of murder. 

On September 16, 2020 the superior court denied Campos’s 

petition without issuing an order to show cause, finding him

ineligible for relief as a matter of law because he had not been 

convicted of murder. Campos filed a timely notice of appeal. 

DISCUSSION

1. Senate Bill No. 1437 and the Section 1170.95 Petition 

Procedure

Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, 

ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437), effective January 1, 2019, eliminated 

the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for 

finding a defendant guilty of murder (People v. Gentile (2020) 

10 Cal.5th 830, 842-843 (Gentile)) and significantly limited the 

felony-murder exception to the malice requirement for murder. 

(See, e.g., People v. Rodriguez (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 227, 236 

(Rodriguez), review granted Mar. 10, 2021, S266652; People v. 

Bascomb (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1077, 1081.)

Senate Bill 1437 also authorized, through new 

section 1170.95, an individual convicted of felony murder or 

murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to 

petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and be 

resentenced on any remaining counts if he or she could not have 

been convicted of murder because of Senate Bill 1437’s changes to 

the definition of the crime. (See Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at 

p. 859.) If the petition contains the information required by 

section 1170.95, subdivision (b), and the court, following the 

procedures detailed in section 1170.95, subdivision (c), 
4

determines the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that 

he or she is entitled to relief, “the court shall issue an order to 

show cause.” (§1170.95, subd. (c); see People v. Verdugo (2020) 

44 Cal.App.5th 320, 328 (Verdugo), review granted Mar. 18, 2020, 

S260493.) 

In evaluating whether an order to show cause should issue, 

however, the superior court properly examines the record of 

conviction to determine if it establishes the petitioner is ineligible 

for relief as a matter of law. (E.g., People v. Drayton (2020) 

47 Cal.App.5th 965, 980 [when assessing the prima facie 

showing, “[t]he trial court should not evaluate the credibility of 

the petition’s assertions, but it need not credit factual assertions 

that are untrue as a matter of law—for example, a petitioner’s 

assertion that a particular conviction is eligible for relief where 

the crime is not listed in subdivision (a) of section 1170.95 as 

eligible for resentencing”]; see People v. Smith (2020) 

49 Cal.App.5th 85, 92, review granted July 22, 2020, S262835 

[“[i]f it is clear from the record of conviction that the petitioner

cannot establish eligibility as a matter of law, the trial court may

deny the petition”]; Verdugo, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at pp. 329-

330, review granted [“[T]he court must at least examine the 

complaint, information or indictment filed against the petitioner; 

the verdict form or factual basis documentation for a negotiated 

plea; and the abstract of judgment. Based on a threshold review

of these documents, the court can dismiss any petition filed by an

individual who was not actually convicted of first or second

degree murder”].)
5

2. The Superior Court Properly Ruled Campos Is Ineligible 

for Relief as a Matter of Law

In accord with the procedures described in People v. Cole

(2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, review granted October 14, 2020,

S264278, we appointed counsel to represent Campos on appeal. 

After reviewing the record, appointed counsel filed a brief raising 

no issues. Appointed counsel advised Campos on February 22, 

2021 that he had 30 days to submit a brief or letter raising any 

grounds of appeal, contentions or arguments he wanted the court 

to consider. 

On March 8, 2021 we received a single-page handwritten 

supplemental brief in which Campos asserted, without additional 

argument, section 1170.95 should include conspiracy to commit 

murder. However, as the superior court ruled, conspiracy to

commit murder is not identified as an offense eligible for

resentencing under section 1170.95, subdivision (a). (§ 1170.95,

subd. (a)(2) [to be eligible for resentencing, the petitioner must

have been “convicted of first degree or second degree murder

following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of trial at which

the petitioner could be convicted for first degree or second degree

murder”]; see People v. Larios (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 956, 970,

review granted Feb. 26, 2020, S259983 [“the relief provided

in section 1170.95 is limited to certain murder convictions and

excludes all other convictions, including a conviction for

attempted murder”]; People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087,

1103-1105, review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S258175 [Senate

Bill 1437 limits relief to individuals convicted of murder].) 

Campos was not convicted of first or second degree murder, let

alone murder under the natural and probable consequences

doctrine or the felony murder rule, the focus of Senate Bill 1437
6

and a requirement for relief under section 1170.95. By the plain

terms of the statute, Campos was not eligible for resentencing. 

Because no cognizable legal issues have been raised by 

Campos’s appellate counsel or by Campos or identified in our own 

independent review of the record, the order denying his motion 

for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 is affirmed. (See 

People v. Cole, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1039-1040, review 

granted; see also People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 

503; see generally People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; 

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment order denying Campos’s petition for 

resentencing is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.