Court Opinion

ID: 9363922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 21:01:52.669137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.886060
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/17/23 P. v. Roberts CA2/3

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

 Ca l ifornia Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
 o p inions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This
 o p inion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                        SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     DIVISION THREE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                  B319437

        Plaintiff and Respondent,                             Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. BA295768
        v.

 JOSHUA ROBERTS,

        Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lisa B. Lench, Judge. Affirmed.
      Janyce Keiko Imata Blair, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                            INTRODUCTION

       On February 22, 2022, defendant Joshua Roberts filed a
second petition for resentencing under Penal Code 1 section
1170.95.2 On March 9, 2022, the trial court summarily denied the
petition without appointing counsel and without issuing an order
to show cause. The court explained that defendant’s prior petition
under section 1170.95 was denied on September 17, 2019, and
none of the subsequent changes to section 1170.95 “impact the
reasoning or ruling with regard to the court’s previous denial of
his petition.”
       Defendant appeals from the March 2022 order denying his
resentencing petition, and his appointed counsel filed a brief
under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436. By letter dated October 14, 2022, we gave defendant
30 days to submit additional briefing or a letter stating any
grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments which he
wishes this court to consider. To date he has not done so. We find
no appealable issue and affirm the order.

                             BACKGROUND

       A detailed recitation of the facts is provided in our prior
opinions. (People v. Roberts (Nov. 18, 2008, B201071) [nonpub.
opn.] (Roberts I); People v. Roberts (Oct. 9, 2020, B302244)
[nonpub. opn.] (Roberts II).) In sum, in 2007 defendant was tried
for the murder of Donte Loeb. Per the opinion in Roberts I, the

1   All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered as section
1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                     2
evidence established that Loeb was taking out the trash one
night. Loeb’s mother heard gunshots. Looking outside, she saw
two men, one in the driver’s seat of a car and the second standing
next to the car. Loeb was leaning on a flowerbed, holding his side.
He had been shot four times, fatally. Loeb’s mother identified
defendant and Derek Daron Cooper as the two men she saw that
night. She said defendant was the car’s driver. Two other
witnesses identified defendant, and one witness said that
defendant and Cooper had guns. Cooper and defendant were
friends and they both belonged to a Crips gang. On the night of
the shooting, Cooper’s former girlfriend accompanied them
several times to the shooting scene because they wanted to make
sure the victim had died. Thereafter, whenever they passed that
spot, Cooper and defendant would say, “[T]hat’s where we flat
lined that guy.”
       The jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (§
187, subd. (a)). The jury found not true a personal gun use
allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) but found true a principal gun-
use allegation (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)). The jury also
found a gang allegation true (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)). On July
26, 2007, the trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life.
       In July 2019, defendant petitioned for resentencing under
section 1170.95. In his form petition, defendant checked boxes
indicating: (1) a complaint, information or indictment had been
filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a
theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine; (2) he was convicted of first or
second degree murder under one of those doctrines; and (3) he
could not now be convicted of first or second degree murder
because of changes to sections 188 and 189. Defendant also

                                 3
checked boxes to indicate he was not the actual killer and had
been convicted of second degree murder under the natural and
probable consequences or the felony-murder doctrines. He did not
ask the court to appoint counsel for him during the resentencing
process. On September 17, 2019, the court summarily denied the
petition without appointing counsel for defendant. In denying the
petition, the court said it had relied on Roberts I, the court file
containing minutes of the proceedings, jury instructions, and
verdict forms. Those documents showed that the case was not
prosecuted under either the felony murder or natural and
probable consequences doctrines and that the jury was not
instructed on either of those theories. Instead, defendant was
convicted as a principal, under CALJIC Nos. 3.00 and 3.01, so the
jury necessarily found that he harbored the requisite specific
intent to kill either as a direct perpetrator or aider and abettor.
        Defendant appealed the court’s September 17, 2019, order
and this court affirmed in Roberts II. Roberts II held “[t]he record
of conviction establishes that [defendant] was not convicted of
murder under either a felony murder or natural and probable
consequences theory. The information alleged one sole count of
murder against [defendant]. And the jury was not instructed on
felony murder or on the natural and probable consequences
doctrine. Rather, the jury was instructed on aider and abettor
liability under CALJIC Nos. 3.00 and 3.01. This instructional
scenario accords with the background. That is, [defendant] and
his accomplice, both armed, approached the victim, and one or
both shot him. After, [defendant] and his accomplice commented
that they had shot the victim. [Defendant] was therefore
convicted as a direct aider and abettor who acted with intent to
kill.” (Roberts II, supra, p. 8.) Although the California Supreme

                                 4
Court granted defendant’s petition for review pending disposition
of People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis), it dismissed the
petition on January 5, 2022. This court issued the remittitur on
January 11, 2022.
       On February 22, 2022, defendant filed a two-page form
petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. Like he did in his
prior petition, defendant checked boxes indicating: (1) a
complaint, information or indictment had been filed against him
that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony
murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine; (2) he was convicted of murder; and (3) he could not now
be convicted of murder because of changes to sections 188 and
189.3 Defendant also checked a box requesting the appointment
of counsel.
       On March 9, 2022, the court summarily denied the petition
without appointing counsel and ruled as follows: “The court is in
receipt of a petition for resentencing filed by defendant Joshua
Roberts in which he alleges, pursuant to Penal Code section
1170.95, that he was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or
manslaughter and that he could not presently be convicted of said
crimes because of changes made to Penal Code sections 188 and
189 effective January 1, 2019. Defendant also seeks the
appointment of counsel. Defendant fails to state that he
previously filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95
which was considered by the court and denied on September 17,
2019. In its order the court found that the case was not

3This petition contained some new language—for example, that
besides murder, defendant was convicted of attempted murder or
manslaughter. The new language is not relevant to this appeal.

                                 5
prosecuted based upon either a theory of natural and probable
consequences or felony murder and the jury was not instructed on
those theories. Rather[,] defendant was convicted as a principal
pursuant to CALJIC instructions 3.00 and 3.01 and the jury had
to have found that defendant harbored the requisite intent. While
there were changes to Penal Code section 1170.95 effective after
the date of the denial of defendant’s previous petition, none of
them impact the reasoning or ruling with regard to the court’s
previous denial of its petition. There is nothing which gives
defendant the right to file a second and subsequent petition.”
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.4

                            DISCUSSION

       Following the Wende guidelines, we have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the entire appellate record. We discern no
arguable issue.
       Although we have not independently found authorities
addressing the propriety of successive section 1170.95 petitions
based on the same law and facts, there is such authority in the
context of successive habeas petitions. In short, the rule as to
habeas petitions is that absent some change in law or facts, the
court will not consider repeated petitions presenting claims
previously rejected, nor will the court consider new grounds for
relief which were known to petitioner at the time of the prior
petition. That is, a defendant cannot present his contentions on a

4On March 18, 2022, defendant filed a third petition for resentencing
under section 1170.95. The court summarily denied that petition on
April 4, 2022, explaining it was “successive and lacks justification for
the filing of a successive petition.” The April 2022 order is not
challenged in this appeal.

                                    6
piecemeal basis. Such successive petitions waste scarce judicial
resources and undermine the finality of judgments. (In re
Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 460, 497, superseded by statute on
other grounds in In re Friend (2021) 11 Cal.5th 720, 745.) Given
that in Lewis, our Supreme Court indicated the prima facie
determination in habeas petitions is analogous to that in section
1170.95 petitions (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 971, 973), it
seems reasonable that that analogy would extend to include a
rule barring successive section 1170.95 petitions.
       Assuming the second petition was not barred as a
successive petition, and since defendant’s petition alleged all the
required conditions for relief and requested appointment of
counsel, the court was required to appoint counsel and allow the
parties to file briefs before considering the record of conviction.
(Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 957, 962–963, 971–972.) That
said, we find the failure to appoint counsel and permit briefing to
be harmless. Here, defendant was convicted of murder as a direct
aider and abettor. And section 1170.95 did not eliminate direct
aiding and abetting liability for murder because a direct aider
and abettor to murder must possess malice aforethought. (People
v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 848.) Because he is statutorily
ineligible for relief, it is not reasonably probable that if defendant
had been afforded assistance of counsel and the ability to file
briefing, he would have avoided summary denial of his petition.

                                  7
                            DISPOSITION

       The order is affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                LAVIN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

       EGERTON, J.

       RICHARDSON, (ANNE K.) J.*

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

                                    8