Court Opinion

ID: 9941718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 20:02:36.155553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:57.984375
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/16/24 P. v. Laws CA2/4
            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          B328022

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  (Los Angeles County
                                                                       Super. Ct. No. KA008785)
           v.

 BRIAN KEITH LAWS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Bruce F. Marrs, Judge. Affirmed.
         Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and
Brian Keith Laws, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                               INTRODUCTION
         Defendant Brian Keith Laws (Laws) was convicted of first degree
murder after a jury trial. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. Laws
subsequently filed a petition for recall and resentencing under former Penal
Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court denied the petition, concluding Laws
was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
         On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the
procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked
this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Laws submitted his own letter brief and requested
that this court address one issue. We address Laws’ issue and affirm the
order.

                         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         In 1993, a jury found Laws guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code,
§ 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true the allegation that Laws personally
used a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1) and 12022.5, subd. (a)).2
The court sentenced Laws to life in state prison without the possibility of
parole.
         In 1994, this court affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Laws
(June 30, 1994, B075311) [nonpub. opn.].)
         In 2022, Laws filed, in pro. per., his fourth petition for resentencing
under former section 1170.95. For the fourth time, the trial court denied the
petition, finding that Laws failed to establish a prima facie case that he was
entitled to relief because the record of conviction demonstrated that Laws
was the actual shooter.

1     Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to
section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive
changes to the statute.

2        All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                           2
      Laws filed a timely notice of appeal.

                                DISCUSSION
   A. Governing Principles
      Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) limited accomplice liability
under the felony-murder rule, eliminated the natural and probable
consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and eliminated convictions for
murder based on a theory under which malice is imputed to a person based
solely on that person’s participation in a crime. (See generally People v. Reyes
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 981; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957, 959
(Lewis); People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843 (Gentile).) Senate
Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437) added section 189, subdivision (e) (limiting
application of the felony-murder rule) and section 188, subdivision (a)(3)
(stating that “to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with
malice aforethought” and “[m]alice shall not be imputed to a person based
solely on his or her participation in a crime”). As amended by Senate Bill No.
775, effective January 1, 2022, these ameliorative changes to the law now
expressly apply to attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter.
      SB 1437 also created a procedure, now codified at section 1172.6, for a
person convicted of murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter
under the former law to be resentenced if the person could no longer be
convicted of those crimes under the current law. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at
p. 959; Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at p. 847.) A defendant commences that
procedure by filing a petition containing a declaration that, among other
things, the defendant could not presently be convicted of murder, attempted
murder, or voluntary manslaughter under the current law. (People v. Strong
(2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708.) If a petition establishes a prima facie case for

                                       3
relief, the trial court must appoint counsel if requested, issue an order to
show cause, and hold an evidentiary hearing. (Strong, at pp. 708–709;
§ 1172.6, subds. (b)(3), (c), & (d)(1).)
      Where a trial court denies a section 1172.6 petition based on the failure
to make a prima facie case for relief, our review is de novo. (See People v.
Drayton (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 965, 981, overruled in part on another ground
in Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 962–970.)

   B. Analysis
      In his letter brief, Laws challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of his
first degree murder conviction. However, “[t]he mere filing of a [section
1172.6] petition does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to . . . attack
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings.” (See People v.
Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947.) Moreover, Laws’ questioning of the
evidence against him does not demonstrate that the court erred in denying
his petition for resentencing. (People v. Gonzalez (2021) 12 Cal.5th 367, 410
[it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error].)
                                           //
                                           //
                                           //
                                           //
                                           //

                                           4
                              DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s postjudgment order denying Laws’ section 1172.6
petition is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                         ZUKIN, J.

      WE CONCUR:

      COLLINS, Acting P. J.

      MORI, J.

                                     5