Court Opinion

ID: 9893871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 19:05:46.286882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:43.831958
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/30/23 P. v. Lee CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098034

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 07F01569)

           v.

 THAE LEE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         A jury found defendant Thae Lee guilty of discharging a firearm at an occupied
vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246)1 and found true that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53,
subd. (c)) and committed the crime to promote a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd.
(b)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to state prison for 25 years to life plus 20 years
consecutive for the firearm enhancement. On appeal, we struck the 20-year term for the

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
firearm sentence and affirmed the judgment as modified. (People v. Lee (Oct. 9, 2009,
C058336) [nonpub. opn.].)
       In August 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.2
The trial court denied defendant’s petition, finding him ineligible for relief as a matter of
law because defendant was not convicted of murder, attempted murder, or any other
charge eligible for relief under section 1172.6.
       Defendant now appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing. His
appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and asked that we
exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal.
       This court notified defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief raising
any argument he wanted us to consider. Defendant filed two supplemental briefs,
arguing: (1) the trial court in his underlying case erroneously took judicial notice of court
documents in related cases involving the same gang that prosecutors argued defendant
belonged to, and we erroneously relied on this evidence in finding that substantial
evidence supported the true finding on the gang enhancement; (2) the trial court in his
underlying case erred in admitting the gang expert’s testimony; and (3) the evidence was
insufficient to support the true finding on the gang enhancement. Defendant further asks
that we consider the effect of Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) on his gang
enhancement conviction. We will affirm.

2 Defendant petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95. Effective June 30,
2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 as section 1172.6 without
substantive changes. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                              2
                                     I. DISCUSSION
A.      Legal Background
        Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), which became effective on
January 1, 2019, “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 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.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1(f).)
        Section 188, which defines malice, now provides in part: “Except as stated in
subdivision (e) of Section 189, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime
shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely
on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3); Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 2.)
Senate Bill No. 1437’s changes to section 189 relevant to felony murder are not at issue
here.
        Senate Bill No. 1437 also created a mechanism for individuals 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 that person’s
participation in a crime” to petition to have their murder conviction vacated and to be
resentenced in what is now section 1172.6. Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill
No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.6 to expand its coverage beyond
those convicted of murder to include individuals convicted of “attempted murder under
the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or manslaughter.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551,
§ 2; § 1172.6, subd. (a).)
        Upon submission of a section 1172.6 petition, “the court shall hold a hearing to
determine whether the petitioner has made a prima facie case for relief. If the petitioner
makes a prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the court shall issue
an order to show cause.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).)

                                                3
       The prima facie inquiry under section 1172.6, subdivision (c) is “limited.”
(People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971.) The court “ ‘ “takes petitioner’s factual
allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner
would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.” ’ ” (Ibid.) The
court may rely on the record of conviction in determining whether defendant has made a
prima facie showing, and “ ‘if the record, including the court’s own documents,
“contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in the petition,” then “the court is justified
in making a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner.” ’ ” (Ibid.; see also
People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52 [it is appropriate for a court to deny a
defendant’s resentencing petition if the record shows defendant is ineligible for relief as a
matter of law].) Still, the court “should not engage in ‘factfinding involving the weighing
of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ” (Lewis, supra, at p. 972.)
B.     Analysis
       Defendant offers no evidence or argument that contradicts the trial court’s correct
finding that defendant is ineligible for relief because he was never convicted of an
eligible offense. Section 1172.6 clearly states that relief is limited to those convicted of
murder (§ 187), attempted murder (§§ 664/187), or manslaughter (§ 192) under a theory
of imputed malice such as felony murder or the natural and probable consequences
theory. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) Because defendant was convicted of discharging a firearm
at an occupied vehicle (§ 246) and related enhancements, he is ineligible for relief as a
matter of law.
       As to the subject of this appeal, namely the trial court’s denial of his section
1172.6 petition, we find no merit in defendant’s arguments regarding whether the trial
court in his underlying conviction properly admitted evidence, whether the evidence was
sufficient to establish the true finding on the gang enhancement, or whether Assembly
Bill No. 333’s amendments to section 186.22 have any impact on his convictions. An
appeal from a denial of a section 1172.6 petition is “not a direct appeal,” and the statute

                                              4
“does not permit a petitioner to establish eligibility [for resentencing] on the basis of
alleged trial error.” (People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438.)
                                    II. DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order denying the resentencing petition is affirmed.

                                                         /S/

                                                   RENNER, J.

       We concur:

       /S/

       MAURO, Acting P. J.

       /S/

       WISEMAN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              5