Court Opinion

ID: 9391269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 18:02:33.810561+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:40.472887
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/1/23 P. v. Bunton CA2/2
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          B320830

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Los Angeles County
                                                                      Super. Ct. No. A953199)
          v.

 RONNIE LOVELLE BUNTON,

          Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

       Defendant Ronnie Lovelle Bunton appeals from the trial court’s
order denying his postjudgment petition for resentencing under Penal
Code1 section 1172.6.2 Having found no error, we affirm the court’s
order.
                           BACKGROUND
       On March 14, 1989, a jury convicted Bunton of first degree
murder, residential burglary and robbery. The jury found true the

         1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
         2
        Bunton petitioned the court pursuant to section 1170.95.
Effective June 30, 2022, that section was renumbered section 1172.6,
with no change in the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
allegation Bunton personally used a knife during the commission of the
murder and the special circumstances that he committed the murder
during the commission of residential burglary and robbery. (People v.
Bunton (Jan. 6, 1992, B041809) [nonpub. opn].) Bunton was sentenced
to a term of life without the possibility of parole. (Ibid.)
       The victim, Dr. Audry Derrick, was a Presbyterian minister and
Bunton’s neighbor. She was overheard complaining about Bunton’s
repeated requests for money, all of which she rejected. Bunton’s
fingerprints were recovered from inside Derrick’s ransacked home.
Items of value belonging to Derrick were found in Bunton’s home.
(People v. Bunton, supra, B041809.)
       Bunton appealed from the judgment. We rejected Bunton’s
claims of instructional, evidentiary, and sentencing errors and affirmed
the judgment. (People v. Bunton, supra, B041809.)
       After Bunton’s conviction, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No.
1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), amending sections 188
and 189, the laws pertaining to felony murder and murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine, “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).) The Legislature also added what
is now section 1172.6, which provides a procedure for those convicted of
murder to seek retroactive relief if they could not now be convicted
under the amended laws. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.)
       Bunton filed a section 1172.6 petition on July 30, 2021, alleging
that he had been convicted of murder under the felony-murder rule or
the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and that he was not
the actual killer or aided and abetted with the intent to kill. Bunton
was represented by private counsel.
       The prosecutor filed opposition and attached copies of this court’s
1992 opinion, the jury instructions, and the verdict forms.
       The trial court reviewed the documents submitted by the parties
and issued a tentative ruling denying the petition on April 4, 2022. The

                                    2
court found Bunton had not demonstrated a prima facie case that he
qualified for relief under the statute, as he was prosecuted and
convicted as the actual killer who personally used a deadly weapon.
The court continued the hearing pursuant to the parties’ stipulation.
      At the continued hearing on May 13, 2022, Bunton’s counsel
informed the trial court that Bunton is “waiving his appearance. He
understands what the court is likely to do, and based on that, we would
submit.” The court then denied the petition.
      Bunton filed a timely notice of appeal from the order of denial.
                              DISCUSSION
      After examination of the record, appellate counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues. Where appellate counsel finds no
arguable issues in an appeal that is not the first appeal after
conviction, we are not required to conduct an independent review of the
record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, or its federal
constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,
[87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493]. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216, 226.) However, even if we do not independently review the record
to identify unraised issues in such a case, we give the defendant the
opportunity to file his own supplemental brief or letter and we evaluate
any specific arguments raised. (See Delgadillo, at p. 232.)
      Here, counsel provided Bunton with a copy of the record on
appeal, informed him of his right to file his own supplemental brief,
and that the Court of Appeal may dismiss his appeal as abandoned if
he does not do so.
      On February 17, 2023, we notified Bunton of counsel’s brief and
gave him 30 days to file his own letter or brief stating any grounds for
an appeal, contentions, or arguments that he wished to be considered.
More than 30 days have elapsed since Bunton was so notified, and to
date, Bunton has not filed a supplemental brief or letter. As Bunton
has failed to raise any arguments to be addressed, we may dismiss the
appeal as abandoned.
      Nevertheless, we affirm the trial court’s order based upon a
limited review, as “appellate courts can often readily confirm that a

                                   3
defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law without conducting
an independent review of the entire record.” (People v. Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230.) We have taken judicial notice of the
appellate record in People v. Bunton, supra, B041809, and we have
reviewed the verdicts rendered against Bunton, the jury instructions,
and the procedural history set forth in the appellate opinion. During
the prima facie review, if the record of conviction contains facts refuting
the allegations of the petition as a matter of law, no prima facie
showing can be made, and the petition is properly denied. (People v.
Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.)
      Here, there is no evidence that someone besides Bunton was
involved in the charged crimes; Bunton did not act as an aider and
abettor. As the jury found, Bunton acted alone as the actual killer and
personally used a knife in the commission of the murder. Accordingly,
Bunton is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law.
                              DISPOSITION
      The order denying the Penal Code section 1172.6 petition is
affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

________________________________________________________________
      LUI, P. J.       ASHMANN-GERST, J.           CHAVEZ, J.

                                    4