Court Opinion

ID: 9411769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 20:04:44.461789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:11.840067
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/27/23 P. v. Charles CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                     B323341

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. BA028815-01
         v.

LEONARD VANNESS
CHARLES,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles Count, Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.

     Stanley Dale Radtke, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                    ——————————
      Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we
review this appeal from an order denying a petition for
resentencing. We affirm.
            PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      On January 14, 1991, the People charged appellant alone
by information with one count of murder under Penal Code
section 187, subdivision (a) and firearm use enhancements
pursuant to Penal Code1 section 12022.5. On January 30, 1992,
appellant pled guilty to second degree murder as alleged in the
amended information and pursuant to People v. West (1970)
3 Cal.3d 595. The trial court eventually sentenced appellant to
an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in state prison.
       The facts underlying the conviction involve a shooting at a
bowling alley. The homicide victim was at the bowling alley with
friends. A group of males including appellant walked into the
alley. Once inside, they confronted some of the male patrons.
During the confrontation someone pulled a handgun from his
waistband and fired it once. The bullet struck and killed the
victim. Appellant and the others fled the scene.
       Appellant was arrested and placed in an interview room
with one of his friends. Their conversation was recorded.
Appellant told his friend, “I know I’m going to jail because I
murdered the lady.” He also said, “You know the only reason I
busted was because the homies kept saying ‘bust.’ ” “Bust”
means “to shoot and to kill.” ~(CT 248)~
       On January 12, 2022, appellant filed a petition for
resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 (renumbered from
§ 1170.95 by Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10, effective June 30, 2022.).

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                2
The trial court appointed counsel, issued an order to show cause,
and set an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing the trial court
admitted into evidence without objection the transcript of the
preliminary hearing, from which we draw the facts. It also
received appellant’s live testimony that he did not fire any gun
into the crowd and only admitted that he did so because of
threats from one of his fellow gang members. The trial court
ultimately denied the petition on the ground that appellant was
the actual shooter. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
        We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On
May 18, 2023, counsel filed a no-issue brief pursuant to People v.
Delgadillo. Counsel advised us he told appellant he may file his
own supplemental brief within 30 days. Counsel sent appellant
transcripts of the record on appeal as well as a copy of the brief.
        On May 18, 2023, this court sent appellant a notice that a
brief raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised
appellant he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental
brief or letter stating any ground for appeal he believes we should
consider. We also advised appellant that if he did not file a
supplemental brief, the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
        Appellant filed a supplemental brief. He contends he was
improperly found guilty of second degree felony murder in
violation of Senate Bill No. 1437. We disagree. The record
reflects appellant was prosecuted and convicted as the actual
killer.
        Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed Senate
Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) “to amend 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 person who is not the actual killer, did not act with

                                3
the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the
underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human
life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) In addition to
substantively amending sections 188 and 189, Senate Bill
No. 1437 added section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6), which provides a
procedure to retroactively seek relief for convicted murderers who
could not be convicted under the law as amended. (People v.
Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.) An individual who personally
killed the victim is not entitled to resentencing relief. (People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233 [defendant “not entitled to
any relief under section 1172.6” because he “was the actual killer
and the only participant in the killing”]; People v. Lopez (2022)
78 Cal.App.5th 1, 4 [actual killer refers to someone who
personally killed the victim].) Appellant was the sole defendant
charged in the information. He was prosecuted as the actual
shooter. He is not entitled to resentencing relief under section
1176.2.
       We are not otherwise required to conduct an independent
review of the record in an appeal from an order denying a petition
for resentencing filed pursuant to section 1172.6 and we decline
to do so. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.)

                                 4
                         DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                       STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             WILEY, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                              5