Filed 8/18/21 P. v. Hall CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL ANDRE HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D078174

 (Super. Ct. No. FWV1202970)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court San Bernardino County, 

Shahla S. Sabet, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. 

Gary V. Crooks, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

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

Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael 

Pulos, Seth Friedman, and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

In 2013, Michael Hall and a co-defendant were charged with three 

counts of murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and multiple other felonies. 

Hall entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of 

voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) as a lesser offense of murder and 

one count of robbery (§ 211). Hall also admitted the crimes were committed 

for the benefit of a criminal street gang. 

In September 2019, Hall filed a petition for resentencing under 

section 1170.95. Although the statutory mechanism for resentencing is 

predicated on a conviction for murder, Hall contended his manslaughter 

conviction should also qualify. The trial court denied the petition on the 

basis that the manslaughter conviction was not eligible for resentencing 

under section 1170.95. 

Hall appeals contending proper statutory construction of 

section 1170.95 should also allow petitions for resentencing of manslaughter 

convictions based on guilty pleas to avoid murder convictions that would 

violate Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) if tried today. He also 

contends that denying him access to the resentencing system for murder 

cases would deny him equal protection.

Hall acknowledges that all of the published opinions of the Courts of 

Appeal have rejected both of his arguments. He contends all of the opinions 

were wrongly decided, including the opinion from this court. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

As we will discuss below, we are satisfied the appellate decisions 

rejecting Hall’s arguments were correct. We will decline to reconsider our 

previous opinions and will affirm the denial of Hall’s petition.2

DISCUSSION

Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) was enacted 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 underlying felony who acted with reckless 

indifference to human life.’ (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)” (People v.

Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723.)

Section 1170.95 was enacted to provide a mechanism for those 

previously convicted of first or second-degree murder on a now improper 

theory of liability, to seek resentencing of their murder convictions where 

appropriate. The section does not provide a mechanism for persons who 

pleaded guilty to manslaughter to avoid the potential of conviction for 

murder. Hall claims there is an ambiguity in the statute and there should be 

an implied inclusion for persons convicted of manslaughter and to find 

otherwise would not only be absurd but would deny equal protection. As we 

have noted, Hall acknowledges the unanimous rejection of the arguments he 

now makes. He dismisses the appellate opinions as wrongly decided. The 

following cases have rejected the current arguments:

People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557, 565-572, review granted 

April 21, 2021, S267529; People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 916, 

918-921; People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194, 197-198; People v. Turner

2 The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to the issue in this 

appeal. We will omit the traditional statement of facts.
4

(2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428, 435-439 (Turner); People v. Flores (2020) 44 

Cal.App.5th 985, 992-997; People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884, 

887-888. 

In Turner, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at pages 435-439, this court 

considered the same basic arguments as are made in this case. We rejected 

those arguments in a careful and thorough decision. We decline to revisit the 

analysis in Turner. Instead, we will follow our decision in Turner and will 

reject Hall’s arguments for the reasons expressed in that opinion.

The trial court correctly determined Hall was not eligible for relief 

under section 1170.95.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Hall’s petition for resentencing under 

section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

GUERRERO, J.