Court Opinion

ID: 9397859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 19:03:33.509916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.295294
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/26/23 P. v. Rizer 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                        G061851

           v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 04WF1401)

 MICHAEL CHARLES RIZER,                                                OPI NION

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A.
Leversen, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Mi Kim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
                   No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                             *               *               *
              The trial court denied defendant Michael Charles Rizer’s Penal Code
section 1170.95 petition to dismiss his murder conviction and to be resentenced (now
                      1
Pen. Code, § 1172.6). The court denied the petition, in part, because the jury found true
an allegation that Rizer “personally used a firearm which caused death.” Rizer filed a
notice of appeal. Appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable
issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Rizer did not file a
supplemental brief on his own behalf.
              In the interests of justice, this court has reviewed the record and found no
arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230 [“if the appellate
court wishes, it may also exercise its discretion to conduct its own independent review of
the record in the interest of justice”].) Thus, we affirm the order of the trial court.

                                               I
                                PROCEDURAL HISTORY
              In December 2006, a jury found Rizer guilty of murder and found true an
allegation he personally discharged a firearm in the commission of the offense. The court
sentenced Rizer to a total aggregate sentence of 40 years to life. This court affirmed the
judgment on appeal. (People v. Rizer (Feb. 23, 2009, G039026) [nonpub. opn.].)
              In January 2022, Rizer filed a postjudgment petition seeking to vacate his
murder conviction and to be resentenced. (§ 1172.6.) The prosecution filed a response,
which included a copy of the jury instructions used at trial, a copy of the verdict forms,
and the underlying unpublished opinion.
              In September 2022, the trial court conducted a prima facie hearing and
denied Rizer’s petition: “The jury was only instructed on the defendant as being the

1
  Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The Legislature
renumbered former section 1170.95 without substantive change, effective June 30, 2022.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                               2
shooter -- with malice. [¶] There were no instructions given on felony murder or natural
probable consequences or any other theory that would suggest a second person involved
in this case. And the verdict is also finding that the defendant personally used a firearm
which caused death.” Rizer’s trial counsel filed a notice of appeal on his behalf.

                                              II
                                       DISCUSSION
              When appointed counsel has identified no arguable issues on appeal, the
appellate court independently reviews the record for any arguable issues. (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two
elements. First, the issue must be one which . . . is meritorious. That is not to say that
the contention must necessarily achieve success. Rather, it must have a reasonable
potential for success. Second, if successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved
favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the
judgment.” (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)
              Here, after independently reviewing the record, we have found no arguable
issues. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 442-443 & fn. 3.) The absence of an
instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine and/or the felony-murder
rule, as well as the jury’s true finding on the personal use of a firearm allegation confirms
Rizer is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. Thus, the trial court
properly denied the petition. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961-972.)

                                              3
                                        III
                                    DISPOSITION
           The order is affirmed.

                                              MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

SANCHEZ, J.

                                         4