Court Opinion

ID: 9905578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 19:04:17.588176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:45.601769
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/29/23 P. v. Lewis CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 .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 SIX

THE PEOPLE,                                                                 2d Crim. No. B329020
                                                                         (Super. Ct. No. 2007002281)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                (Ventura County)

v.

JOHN JOSEPH LEWIS,

     Defendant and Appellant.

       John Joseph Lewis appeals the trial court’s denial of his
motion for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6
(formerly § 1170.95).1 Appellate counsel filed an opening brief
informing this court that he reviewed the record and could not
find any arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel requested
that we send the opening brief to Lewis and inform him of his
right to file a supplemental letter or brief. We so informed Lewis
and he filed a supplemental brief. We evaluated the
supplemental brief and find no issues of merit. (People v.

         1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232 [when appellate counsel
has found no arguable issues and the appellant submits a
supplemental brief or letter, “the Court of Appeal is required to
evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to
issue a written opinion”].) Accordingly, we conclude that the
court properly denied Lewis’s resentencing motion, and affirm.
       This appeal concerns the 2006 murder of Fred Williams, a
member of the criminal street gang Black Mafia Gangsters
(BMG). Longtime friend and fellow BMG gang member Bakari
Pitts shot Williams in an execution-style manner. Lewis had
directed Pitts to kill Williams because he and other gang
members believed that Williams was a “snitch.” Lewis had
offered Pitts money to kill Williams.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
       Lewis was a senior member of BMG and a “big homie” in
the street gang. Pitts agreed to kill Williams because Lewis
asked him to “get rid of” Williams. Pitts arranged a meeting with
Williams in rural Somis. Marlon Thornton drove Pitts to the
area in a rental vehicle. Williams arrived and parked his vehicle.
Pitts walked to Williams’s vehicle and shot him in the head from
a close distance. Pitts then disposed of the firearm in nearby
bushes.
       Thornton and Pitts left the area and drove toward Los
Angeles. Along the way, Pitts telephoned Lewis and stated that
he had completed the assignment (“It’s done.”). Lewis responded
that Pitts would receive payment in Bakersfield. Lewis later
gave Pitts $5,000 and marijuana as payment for the killing.

      2 Our factual summary is derived from the unpublished

opinion in Lewis’s direct appeal. (People v. Lewis (June 29, 2009,
B208585) [nonpub. opn.].)

                                2
From his jail cell, Lewis made statements to a bail bondsman
implicating himself in Williams’s murder.
       On January 26, 2007, the grand jury indicted Lewis for the
first degree murder of Williams and alleged two special
circumstances of murder for financial gain and murder carried
out to further the activities of a criminal street gang. (§ 190.2,
subd. (a)(1), (22).) At a jury trial, the court instructed regarding
direct aiding and abetting and the elements of first degree
murder. The court did not instruct regarding felony murder, the
natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any theory of
imputed malice. The jury convicted Lewis of first degree murder
and found the special circumstance and firearm allegations true.
       The trial court sentenced Lewis to life without the
possibility of parole plus twenty-five years to life for the firearm
enhancement to be served consecutively. We affirmed the
conviction in People v. Lewis, supra, B208585.
       Following Lewis’s conviction of first degree murder with
special circumstances and his later appeal, he brought a motion
for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. The trial court took
judicial notice of the court’s file and then denied the motion at the
prima facie stage. The court concluded that the jury was not
instructed regarding felony murder or the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. The court therefore decided that Lewis is
ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because his
conviction did not rest upon any theory of imputed malice.
       Lewis’s counsel has requested that we undertake an
independent review of the record. We decline this invitation and
instead, briefly consider the arguments Lewis raises in his
supplemental brief. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216,
231-232.)

                                 3
                             DISCUSSION
        A person is entitled to resentencing relief pursuant to
section 1172.6 if (1) “[a] complaint, information, or indictment
was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to
proceed under a theory of felony murder [or] murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine,” (2) the petitioner
“was convicted of murder,” and (3) the petitioner “could not
presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to
Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (Id., subd.
(a)(1)-(3).) In January 2019, our Legislature amended section 188
to provide that “in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in
a crime shall act with malice aforethought” and that “[m]alice
shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his . . .
participation in a crime.” (Id., subd. (a)(3), as amended by Stats.
2018, ch. 1015, § 2.) The amendment ensures that murder
liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer,
did not act with the intent to kill, nor was not a major participant
in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to
human life. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967.) Section
1172.6 provides a procedure for convicted murderers who could
not be convicted under the amended law to retroactively seek
relief.
        The trial court may consider the defendant’s record of
conviction, including the court’s own documents, in assessing
whether he has made a prima facie case for relief pursuant to
section 1172.6. (People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972
[record of conviction includes jury summations, jury instructions,
verdict forms, and prior appellate opinions].) Here the court’s
jury instructions rested upon direct aiding and abetting and first
degree premeditated murder, not any theories of imputed malice.

                                 4
       In his supplemental brief, Lewis contends that his attorney
in the section 1172.6 proceeding had a conflict of interest because
he represented a witness at Lewis’s 2008 trial. He adds that an
associate in his attorney’s law firm represented a different
witness at the 2008 trial. Lewis also challenges Pitts’s credibility
and points out that he stated many versions of the events
preceding and following the murder.
       Lewis’s contentions have no bearing on this appeal which
concerns section 1172.6 resentencing in convictions resting upon
the felony murder or natural and probable consequences
doctrines. Moreover, matters of witness credibility and the
weight of the evidence are questions for the trier of fact. These
matters were determined adversely to Lewis to trial and we do
not redetermine them. (People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327,
378.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The order is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

      BALTODANO, J.

      CODY, J.

                                 5
                    David R. Worley, Judge

               Superior Court County of Ventura

                ______________________________

     S. R. Balash, Jr., under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent

                               6