Court Opinion

ID: 9366169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 23:01:59.797269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.371803
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/25/23 P. v. Lopez CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE

  THE PEOPLE,                                                         B314651

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  (Los Angeles County
                                                                      Super. Ct. No. VA065899)
           v.

  GUALBERTO LOPEZ,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Laronda McCoy, Judge. Remanded.
      Robert D. Bacon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney
General, Steven D. Matthews and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                   _________________________
       A jury convicted Gualberto Lopez of first degree murder
with true findings on the special circumstance allegations that
the murders were committed in the course of a burglary, robbery,
and kidnapping. Years after he was convicted, Lopez petitioned
the trial court for vacation of his conviction and for resentencing
under then recently-enacted Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 The
trial court summarily denied relief without appointing counsel for
Lopez. We conclude that the trial court erred and therefore
remand.
                          BACKGROUND3
I.    The murder of Ernesto Campos
      In 2002, Lopez and David Flores were jointly tried for the
murder of Ernesto Campos. At trial, their accomplice Roman
Valdez testified that Roberto Campos4 was the victim of a home
invasion robbery in 2001. Believing that Ernesto knew who
committed the home invasion robbery, Roberto offered to pay
Valdez to kidnap Ernesto so that Roberto could interrogate him.

1
     All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
2
      Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered to
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
3
      The background is derived from the opinion affirming
Lopez’s and codefendant David Flores’s judgments of conviction
on direct appeal. (People v. Flores (June 17, 2004, B164512
[nonpub. opn.].) We take judicial notice of that opinion. (Evid.
Code, § 452, subd. (a).) Also, at the People’s request, we take
judicial notice of the file in In re Lopez, B304421. (Evid. Code,
§ 452, subd. (d).)
4
    Because parties share surnames, we refer to them by first
names, intending no disrespect.

                                 2
       Valdez agreed and enlisted Lopez and Flores to help him.
Valdez’s relative rented a Chevy Suburban to use in the
kidnapping. Valdez, Flores, and Lopez drove past Ernesto’s home
in the hope of learning when Ernesto left for work.
       On the morning of April 25, 2001, Valdez, Lopez, and
Flores drove to Ernesto’s home. Valdez had a handgun Roberto
had given him, and Valdez gave Lopez and Flores guns he had
purchased on the street. The men entered the home, and Valdez
moved Ernesto and Ernesto’s wife, Gloria Meza, to the kitchen.
They searched for drugs and demanded money.
       After Valdez telephoned Roberto, Valdez told Flores and
Lopez to take Ernesto to the Suburban. Valdez then heard
numerous shots and saw Lopez running after Ernesto, shooting.
Valdez ran to the Suburban. Lopez and Flores entered the
Suburban, and Valdez drove away. Flores was bleeding, so
Valdez took Flores to the hospital, and then Valdez and Lopez
cleaned the Suburban. Lopez told Valdez that when Ernesto
tried to escape, Flores grabbed Ernesto and Lopez accidentally
shot Flores in the arm.
       Meza testified that when the men entered her home,
Valdez appeared to be in charge. Flores “look [ed] all over,” while
Lopez held Ernesto at gunpoint. Flores and Lopez took Ernesto
out of the house, while Valdez remained inside with Meza. From
there, Meza saw Ernesto struggle with one of the men and heard
10 or 12 gunshots. Meza saw Lopez and Flores running with
handguns. Ernesto died.
       Valdez paid Lopez $2,500 and Flores $300 or $400.
       Flores testified on his own behalf, saying that he initially
refused to help Valdez but gave in because he thought Valdez
would hurt him if he didn’t go. According to Flores, Lopez was a

                                3
willing participant who told the people in the residence not to
move, pointed his gun at them, searched the house, and took
Ernesto out of the house. When Ernesto ran, Lopez chased
Ernesto and shot at him.
II.   Jury instructions, verdict, and sentence
       Lopez and Flores’s jury was instructed on felony murder
occurring during the commission of a residential burglary,
robbery, or kidnapping. The jury was further instructed, per
CALJIC No. 8.80.1, that if it found a defendant was not the
actual killer, or the jury was unable to decide the defendant was
the actual killer or an aider and abettor or co-conspirator, it could
not find the special circumstance true as to that defendant unless
it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, with the
intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced,
solicited, requested, or assisted any actor in the commission of
the first degree murder, or with reckless indifference to human
life and as a major participant, aided, abetted, counseled,
commanded, induced, solicited, requested or assisted in
committing the crime of residential burglary, robbery, or
kidnapping which resulted in Ernesto’s death. The instruction
further said, “A defendant acts with reckless indifference to
human life when that defendant knows or is aware that his acts
involve a grave risk of death to an innocent human being.”5

5
      The jury was also instructed on aiding and abetting with
CALJIC Nos. 3.00 [principals], 3.01 [aiding and abetting defined],
3.02 [principals-liability for natural and probable consequences],
and 8.27 [first degree felony murder-aider and abettor].
However, an aider and abettor may not be convicted of murder
under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (People v.
Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155; Senate Bill No. 1437.) The jury was

                                 4
      The jury found Lopez and Flores guilty of first degree
murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1) with true findings on the
special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed
during commission of residential burglary, residential robbery,
and kidnapping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)); kidnapping (§ 207,
subd. (a); count 2); first degree residential robbery (§ 211; count
3); and first degree residential burglary (§ 459; count 4). As to all
counts, the jury found that Lopez and Flores personally used a
firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)).
      On December 23, 2002, the trial court sentenced Lopez, as
relevant here, to life without the possibility of parole for the
murder plus four years for the gun allegation. We affirmed the
judgment of conviction. (People v. Flores, supra, B164512.)
III.   Lopez’s petitions for resentencing
       After passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg.
Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), Lopez filed multiple petitions for
resentencing under the new law, including the one at issue. His
first petition was filed in February 2019, and the trial court
summarily denied it in March 2019, finding that all individuals
involved in the murder were major participants, and their
conduct showed a reckless indifference to human life.6

also instructed on conspiracy with CALJIC No. 6.11, which stated
that a conspirator is guilty of the crime the conspirator agreed to
commit “but is also liable for the natural and probable
consequences of any crime of a co-conspirator” to further the
conspiracy’s object, even if the nontarget crime was not part of
the agreed upon objective.

6
     The court’s order stated that four men entered Ernesto’s
home. While there was evidence that a fourth man was an

                                  5
       In February 2020, Lopez filed another petition for
resentencing. We treated it as a petition for writ of mandate and,
as such, denied it.7
       Then, in July 2021, Lopez filed the at-issue petition for
resentencing under section 1172.6. On July 21, 2021, the trial
court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel
for Lopez. In its order denying the petition, the trial court noted
that Lopez’s prior 2019 petition had been denied and quoted the
order denying that prior petition.
       Lopez now appeals from the 2021 order denying his
petition.
                          DISCUSSION
       Senate Bill 1437, which took effect on January 1, 2019,
limited accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule and
eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as it
relates to murder, to ensure that a person’s sentence is
commensurate with the person’s individual criminal culpability.
(People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843.) To achieve
these goals, Senate Bill 1437 added section 189, subdivision (e)
(limiting application of the felony-murder rule) and section 188,
subdivision (a)(3) (stating that “[m]alice shall not be imputed to a
person based solely on his or her participation in a crime”).
Section 189, subdivision (e), now provides that a participant in
the perpetration of qualifying felonies is liable for felony murder

accomplice, the evidence was that only three men went to
Ernesto’s home that day.

7
       Our order denying the petition referred to exhibits Lopez
had provided showing that the trial court had denied two prior
petitions.

                                 6
only if the person: (1) was the actual killer; (2) was not the actual
killer but, with the intent to kill, acted as a direct aider and
abettor; or (3) the person was a major participant in the
underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human
life, as described in section 190.2, subdivision (d). (Gentile, at
p. 842.) As amended, section 188 “bars a conviction for first or
second degree murder under a natural and probable
consequences theory.” (Gentile, at p. 846.)
       Senate Bill 1437 also added section 1172.6, which created a
procedure whereby persons convicted of murder under a now-
invalid theory may petition for vacation of their convictions and
resentencing. A defendant is eligible for relief under section
1172.6 if the defendant meets three conditions: the defendant
(1) must have been convicted of felony murder or murder under
the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory
under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on the
person’s participation in the crime, (2) must have been convicted
of first or second degree murder, and (3) could no longer be
convicted of first or second degree murder due to changes to
sections 188 and 189 effectuated by Senate Bill 1437. (§ 1172.6,
subd. (a).) If a petitioner makes a prima facie showing of
entitlement to relief, the trial court shall issue an order to show
cause (§ 1172.6, subd. (c)) and hold an evidentiary hearing at
which the prosecution bears the burden of proving “beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the petitioner is guilty of murder or
attempted murder” under the law as amended by Senate Bill
1437 (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3)).
       When the trial court here denied Lopez’s petition, Courts of
Appeal were split regarding two issues concerning section 1172.6.
First, when in the petitioning process are petitioners entitled to

                                 7
counsel? Second, is an aider and abettor defendant whose jury
was instructed before our California Supreme Court issued People
v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016)
63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark) eligible for section 1172.6 relief? Banks
and Clark substantially narrowed and clarified the class of aider
and abettor defendants who are major participants who act with
reckless indifference to human life during a felony and, as such,
are guilty of murder.
       Our California Supreme Court resolved the two issues in
People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis) and People v.
Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698 (Strong). Lewis held that a
defendant is entitled to counsel, if requested, upon the filing of a
facially sufficient petition, that is, one that makes the necessary
averments, without regard to the defendant’s eligibility for relief.
(Lewis, at p. 957.) If the trial court determines that the
petitioner has made such a prima facie showing, it must issue an
order to show cause and “then must hold a hearing ‘to determine
whether to vacate the murder conviction and to recall the
sentence and resentence the petitioner on any remaining counts
in the same manner as if the petitioner had not . . . previously
been sentenced, provided that the new sentence, if any, is not
greater than the initial sentence.’ ” (Id. at p. 960.) In making
that determination, the prosecutor and the petitioner may rely on
the record of conviction or offer new or additional evidence.
(§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3); Lewis, at p. 960.) At the section 1172.6,
subdivision (d)(3) hearing, the prosecution has the burden to
prove the petitioner’s ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
       Under Lewis, the trial court here erred by not appointing
counsel for Lopez, who, it is undisputed, filed a facially sufficient
petition. Such error, however, is subject to harmless error review

                                 8
under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal. 818. (Lewis, supra, 11
Cal.5th at p. 974.) The People therefore argue that any error was
harmless because Lopez’s jury was instructed that to find the
special circumstance allegations true, it had to find that Lopez
was either the actual killer, aided and abetted the murder with
the intent to kill, or was a major participant in the felony who
acted with reckless disregard for human life. Strong, supra, 13
Cal.5th 698, rejected this argument, thereby resolving the second
issue that had divided courts. The court held that a pre-Banks
and Clark finding that the defendant was a major participant
who acted with reckless indifference to human life during a
felony does not preclude that defendant from making a prima
facie case for relief under section 1172.6, even if the trial evidence
was sufficient to support the findings under Banks and Clark.
(Strong, at pp. 719–720.) Thus, while Lopez may well have been
a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to
human life under Banks/Clark, a trial court can make this
determination only after an evidentiary hearing under section
1172.6, subdivision (d), and must do so under the beyond-a-
reasonable-doubt standard.
       The People also argue that any error was harmless because
Lopez was the actual killer. While that was the prosecutor’s
theory at trial, the instructions and verdicts do not establish that
he was convicted as the actual killer. As we have said, the jury
was instructed on felony murder, the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, and conspiracy. Also, the jury merely
found that Lopez, as well as Flores, personally used a gun under
section 12022.5. The jury was not asked to and did not find that
either defendant inflicted great bodily injury. A finding that a
defendant personally used a gun does not by itself necessarily

                                  9
prove the defendant was the actual killer. (People v. Garrison
(2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 735, 743.)
       Finally, the People contend that the petition was
procedurally barred as a successive petition, as Lopez had filed at
least two prior petitions seeking 1172.6 relief that had been
denied and from which no appeals were taken. People v. Farfan
(2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, rejected a similar contention. In that
case, an initial petition was denied in 2019, and the defendant
filed a second petition in 2020. (Id. at p. 946.) After noting that
section 1172.6 jurisprudence continued to evolve after 2019, the
court found that applying collateral estoppel to bar consideration
of the 2020 petition would thwart Senate Bill 1437’s purpose of
ensuring a sentence is commensurate to individual criminal
culpability and to giving relief to all entitled to resentencing.
(Farfan, at p. 950.) The court found this especially true where
the defendant had filed two facially sufficient petitions but never
had counsel appointed. (Ibid.) We agree with Farfan and
therefore conclude that Lopez’s petition is not procedurally
barred.

                                10
                         DISPOSITION

      The order denying Gualberto Lopez’s petition is reversed
and the matter is remanded with the direction to the trial court
to appoint counsel for Lopez, to issue an order to show cause, and
to conduct an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Penal Code
section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(3).
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                          EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

                        LAVIN, J.

                        NGUYEN (KIM), J.*

*     Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                11