Court Opinion

ID: 9881170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-29 20:04:56.590418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:59:20.355997
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/29/23 P. v. Stephany CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                     FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,

      Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        G062228

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 14HF2889)

 NEIL STORM STEPHANY,                                                  OPINION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a postjudgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary
S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               Defendant Neil Storm Stephany filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to
                             1
Penal Code section 1172.6. At the prima facie hearing on the petition, the trial court
found Stephany ineligible for relief as a matter of law and denied the petition. Appointed
appellate counsel for Stephany filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the
facts of the case. Acknowledging Delgadillo and Wende, appellate counsel has asked this
court to conduct an independent review of the record. Stephany was provided 30 days to
file written argument on his own behalf but did not do so.
               Exercising our discretion to independently review the entire record, we find
no reasonably arguable issue. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) We therefore
affirm.

                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
               In 2015, a jury found Stephany guilty of second degree murder (§ 187,
subd. (a)). The trial court imposed a total sentence of 15 years to life. This court
affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Stephany (Aug. 10, 2017, G053063)
[nonpub.opn.].)
               In September 2022, Stephany filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.6. Counsel was appointed at his request. The People filed a response to
Stephany’s petition, arguing it should be denied, and Stephany’s counsel filed a brief in
support of the petition. The trial court conducted a prima facie hearing on the petition.
After reviewing the People’s opposition to the petition, Stephany’s counsel’s brief in
support of the petition, as well as the record of conviction, the trial court found Stephany
had failed to establish a prima facie showing for relief. A statement of decision was then
issued by the trial court. Stephany appealed.

1
    All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                              2
                                       DISCUSSION
              Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.)
(Stats. 2018, ch. 1015; Senate Bill 1437) amended the felony murder rule and natural and
probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder “‘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.’” (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.) Senate Bill 1437 also
added the former section 1170.95, which provides procedures “for convicted murderers
who could not be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief.”
(Lewis, supra, at p. 957.) A subsequent amendment to former section 1170.95 extended
relief to defendants convicted of attempted murder based on the natural and probable
consequences doctrine or manslaughter. (Sen. Bill No. 775 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)
Stats. 2021, ch. 551.)
              After receipt of a section 1172.6 resentencing petition, counsel shall be
appointed upon petitioner’s request. (§ 1172.6, subds. (b)(1)–(3).) The prosecutor must
then file a response to the petition, and a reply may be filed by the petitioner. (§ 1172.6,
subd. (c).) The trial court shall then “hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner
has made a prima facie case for relief.” (Ibid.)
              At the prima facie hearing the trial court may rely on the record of
conviction. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 970–971.) “The record of conviction will
necessarily inform the trial court’s prima facie inquiry under [former] section 1170.95,
allowing the court to distinguish petitions with potential merit from those that are clearly
meritless.” (Id. at p. 971.) Instructions given to the jury at petitioner’s trial may be relied
on by the trial court as part of the record of conviction at the prima facie hearing.
(People v. Soto (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1055.)
              Here, the trial court relied upon the jury instructions and single verdict form
as part of the record of conviction. “The jury was instructed on one theory of guilt —

                                              3
that of an actual perpetrator/killer. [Stephany] was the solo driver, and he killed a
bicyclist under the influence and was convicted of a ‘Watson’ type murder.”
Additionally, the trial court noted the jury was not instructed on imputed malice, felony
murder, conspiracy, or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and the jury was
not instructed on “aiding and abetting any other perpetrator.” The record of conviction
established Stephany was the direct perpetrator and he was not convicted under a
vicarious liability theory. Relief was properly denied by the trial court.
              After independently reviewing the entire appellate record, we find no
arguable issue.

                                      DISPOSITION
              The postjudgment order denying the resentencing petition is affirmed.

                                                         MOTOIKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P.J.

BEDSWORTH, J.

                                              4