Court Opinion

ID: 9364614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 19:02:11.457037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:39.388054
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/19/23 P. v. Millender CA2/3

   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                     B322163
                                                                 (Los Angeles County
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                             Super. Ct. No. TA140190)

           v.

 DAVID L. MILLENDER,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Carol J. Najera, Judge. Affirmed.
      Richard B. Lennon and Larry Pizzaro, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                     ——————————
       David Millender appeals from an order denying his petition
for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 His
appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende), asking us to independently review the
appeal. Exercising our discretion to independently review the
record (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo)),3
we conclude that the trial court properly denied the petition.

1    All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
2     Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered to
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
3      While this matter was pending on appeal, our California
Supreme Court issued Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. The
court held that the procedures in Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738 and Wende do not apply to appeals from the denial of
postconviction relief under section 1172.6. The court instructed
that on appeal from an order denying section 1172.6 relief, a
counsel who finds no arguable issue should file a brief informing
the appellate court of that determination and include a concise
factual recitation. (Delgadillo, at pp. 231–232.) The appellate
court shall send a copy of the brief to the defendant informing the
defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and that if one
is not filed within 30 days, the court may dismiss the matter.
(Ibid.) If a supplemental brief is filed, we must evaluate the
contentions in it. (Id. at p. 232.) If a supplemental brief is not
filed, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned without a written
opinion. (Ibid.) However, we retain discretion to independently
review the record. (Ibid.)

                                 2
       Millender shot and killed his brother.4 In 2016, a jury
found Millender guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a))
with a true finding on personal gun use allegations (§ 12022.53,
subds. (b), (c) & (d)). That same year, the trial court sentenced
Millender to life for the murder, plus 25 years to life for the gun
enhancement, and five years for a prior (§ 667, subd. (a)). The
trial court also imposed a minimum parole eligibility period of 25
years, doubled to 50 years under the Three Strikes law.
       In 2022, Millender petitioned for resentencing under
section 1172.6 on his murder conviction. The trial court
appointed counsel to represent Millender. The People opposed
the petition on the ground that Millender was ineligible for relief
because he was not convicted under a felony murder or natural
and probable consequences theory, as his jury was not instructed
on them. In support, the People submitted the jury instructions
from Millender’s trial. The trial court found that Millender’s jury
was not instructed on either felony murder or the natural and
probable consequences doctrine and found that Millender was the
actual killer. The trial court accordingly found him ineligible for
relief as a matter of law and denied the petition.
       This appeal followed. Court-appointed appellate counsel
filed an opening brief that raised no issues and asked this court
to independently review the record under Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d 436. We directed appellant’s counsel to send Millender
the record and a copy of the opening brief, and we advised that

4     We derive the factual background from the opinion
affirming Millender’s judgment of conviction, a copy of which the
People submitted as an exhibit in its papers opposing
resentencing. (People v. Millender (July 16, 2018, B278727)
[nonpub. opn.].)

                                 3
within 30 days of the date of the notice, Millender could submit a
supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or
contentions, or arguments he wished this court to consider.
Millender did not submit a supplemental brief. Nonetheless, the
notice sent to Millender was defective because it did not inform
him that if he did not submit a supplemental brief, his appeal
could be dismissed as abandoned. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at pp. 233–234.) Therefore, as did the court in Delgadillo, we
exercise our discretion and independently review the record.
      Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) limited
accomplice liability under the felony-murder rule, eliminated the
natural and probable consequences doctrine as it relates to
murder, and eliminated convictions for murder based on a theory
under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that
person’s participation in a crime. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a) [added by
Sen. Bill No. 1437]; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957,
959; People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843.) Senate
Bill No. 1437 thus added section 189, subdivision (e) (limiting
application of the felony-murder rule) and section 188,
subdivision (a)(3) (stating that “[m]alice shall not be imputed to
a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime”). As
amended, section 188 “bars a conviction for first or second degree
murder under a natural and probable consequences theory.”
(Gentile, at p. 846.)
      As the trial court found, Millender’s jury was not instructed
on felony murder, the natural and probable consequences
doctrine, aiding and abetting, or any other theory under which
malice could be imputed to him based on his participation in the
crime. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) The jury also found true personal
gun use allegations (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), & (d)). The record

                                 4
therefore shows that Millender was the sole participant in the
crime and the actual killer. As such, he was ineligible for section
1172.6 relief. (See, e.g., Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233
[defendant ineligible for § 1172.6 relief where record made clear
he was actual killer and only participant in the killing].)
                         DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                     EDMON, P. J.
We concur:

                        LAVIN, J.

                        NGUYEN (KIM), J.*

*     Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                 5