Court Opinion

ID: 9838896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 17:04:03.532756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:29.597037
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/8/23 P. v. Davis CA1/3
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                DIVISION THREE
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
    CALIFORNIA,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                               A166657
    v.
                                                                   (Contra Costa County
    ROBERT VONROSKI DAVIS,                                          Super. Ct. No. 59410648)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         In 1994, defendant Robert Vonroski Davis was convicted by a jury of
the first-degree murder of one victim (Pen. Code §187; all further statutory
references are to this code) (count one) and the willful, deliberate and
premeditated attempted murder of a second victim (§§ 187, 664) (count two),
with true findings that Davis personally used a firearm and had sustained a
prior conviction. (§§ 667, subd. (a); 12022.5, subd. (a).) Davis was sentenced
to consecutive terms of 35 years to life (count one) and a life term plus five
years (count two). His convictions and sentences were affirmed by our
colleagues in Division Four. (People v. Davis (April 24, 1996, A070153)
[nonpub. opn.].)
         In April 2022, Davis filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.6.1 After counsel was appointed and supplemental briefing was

1     Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to
section 1172.6, with no substantive changes in the statute. (Stats. 2022,

                                                               1
filed, the superior court summarily denied the petition on the basis that the
jury instructions established Davis was not eligible for section 1172.6 relief
as a matter of law.2 Davis’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo); the brief
raises no specific contentions but suggests we conduct an independent review
of the record at our discretion. Relying on Delgadillo, we informed Davis of
his right to file a supplemental letter or brief and he has filed such a letter.
      In his supplemental letter, Davis asks us to consider the following facts
in support of his request for a resentencing hearing: he was not the person
who committed these crimes, there was no weapon, there were no
fingerprints that belonged to him, and the attempted murder victim (the “sole
key” to his conviction) was on tape attempting to bribe Davis for truthful
testimony. However, a posttrial motion for resentencing under section 1172.6
does not permit this court to reexamine all aspects of a conviction. It only
permits us to determine whether a defendant was previously convicted on a
legal theory that is no longer valid. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).)
      Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437) “ ‘amend[ed]
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

ch. 58, § 10 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) Throughout this opinion, we cite to
section 1172.6 for ease of reference.
2     The petition only sought resentencing of Davis’s murder conviction.
However, at the time the petition was filed, Senate Bill No. 775 (SB 775)
(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) had been enacted, expanding eligibility for relief to
include individuals convicted of attempted murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is
imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime.
(Stats. 2021, ch. 551, §2; eff. January 1, 2022.) Accordingly, the superior
court considered the petition seeking resentencing to include a request as to
both the murder and attempted murder convictions, as do we on appeal.

                                        2
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.’ ” (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842
(Gentile)3.) The Legislature accomplished this in part by substantively
amending sections 188 and 189. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959
(Lewis).) Effective January 1, 2022, SB 775 expanded eligibility for
resentencing relief to include persons charged and/or convicted of attempted
murder under a theory of felony murder or the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); People v. Porter (2022) 73
Cal.App.5th 644, 650–652.)
      In assessing whether a defendant is entitled to resentencing due to a
conviction based on a no longer valid legal theory, the trial court may
consider the jury instructions provided at trial. (See People v. Daniel (2020)
57 Cal.App.5th 666, 677 (Daniel), review granted Feb. 24, 2021, S266336,
reviewed dismissed Dec. 1, 2021 [jury instructions may be consulted in
determining whether a defendant is statutorily eligible for resentencing
under § 1172.6].) Here, the jury was not given any instructions involving
felony murder, or the imputation of malice under accomplice liability (such as
the natural and probable consequences doctrine). Nor was the jury
instructed on any underlying felony which could have been the basis for
felony murder liability, or any target crime which could have been the basis
for liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Rather,
the jury was instructed using CALJIC Nos. 8.10, 8.11, and 8.20, the
instructions on murder and first-degree murder, and CALJIC Nos. 8.66 and
8.67, the instructions on willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted

3     Gentile was abrogated in part on another point by statute as stated in
People v. Williams (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1244 at page 1252, footnote 9.

                                        3
murder. Those instructions informed the jury that to convict Davis of first-
degree murder and willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder
the jury had to find he harbored actual malice i.e., a “clear and deliberate
intent to kill” both victims.
      Hence, the superior court appropriately found Davis was not entitled to
resentencing as a matter of law as the trial court instructions showed the
jury relied on – and the defendant’s murder and attempted murder
convictions necessarily rested on – the theory of actual malice, a theory of
liability unaffected by section 1172.6. Because actual malice remains a valid
theory of murder and attempted murder under the new law as amended by
SB 1437, Davis cannot meet the statutory eligibility requirement for
resentencing. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3) [eligibility requires that defendant
“could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of
changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019”]; see Daniel,
supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 667 [if jury was not instructed on either the
natural and probable consequences or felony murder doctrines, then the
petition must be denied without issuance of an order to show cause]; People v.
Soto (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1055–1059 (Soto)4 [petition subject to denial
as a matter of law where petitioner’s murder conviction is necessarily based
on theory of actual malice].)
                                 DISPOSITION
      The October 21, 2022 order denying the petition for resentencing is
affirmed.

4     Soto was overruled on another point in Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952 at
page 957.

                                       4
                                _________________________
                                Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Tucher, P.J.

_________________________
Rodríguez, J.

A166657/People v. Davis

                            5