Court Opinion

ID: 9889341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-09 18:04:04.33774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:46.621913
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/9/23 P. v. Hendrix 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                C096994

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 08F09531)

           v.

    MARCELL HENDRIX,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Marcell Hendrix appeals from the denial of his postconviction petition
for relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Counsel for defendant filed a brief seeking
our independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v.

1        Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

       Defendant filed his petition under former section 1170.95. Effective June 30,
2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 with no change in
the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to the statute by its current section
number.

                                                             1
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. Defendant also filed a supplemental brief in propria persona. Disagreeing with
defendant’s claim of error, we will affirm.

                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       A jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)) and one
count of infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), and
found true several enhancements. The trial court found a prior strike allegation true and
sentenced defendant to a total term of 29 years.
       On April 1, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6,
alleging he was convicted on a now-invalid theory. The prosecutor filed a response,
arguing the jury instructions at defendant’s trial did not include an instruction on the
natural and probable consequences doctrine, and instead required the jury to find
defendant had the intent to kill to find defendant guilty of attempted murder. The
prosecutor attached the jury instructions to the response, including the attempted murder
instruction under CALCRIM No. 600.
       On September 13, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s petition by written
order, stating the attempted murder instruction “required the jury to find [defendant]
‘intended to kill a person’ in order to find him guilty” and the “jury was not instructed on
felony murder (CALCRIM 540A, 540B) or the natural and probable consequences
doctrine (CALCRIM 402, 403).”

                                       DISCUSSION
       Under Delgadillo, we must “evaluate the specific arguments presented in
[defendant’s supplemental brief],” but we are not compelled to undertake an
“independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.” (People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) We proceed accordingly.

                                              2
       In his supplemental brief, defendant challenges the trial court’s order denying his
section 1172.6 petition, stating “a review of the actual trial transcripts of the entire jury
trial will only reveal whether what is demanded within [section] 1172.6 has occurred.”
He also contends the “[s]pecific intent to kill is equal to imputed malice.” We disagree.
       Trial courts are permitted to review the record of conviction at the section 1172.6
prima facie stage to determine whether a petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of
law. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972.) The record of conviction
includes the jury instructions provided at the petitioner’s trial. (See People v. Harden
(2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 52 [“if the record shows that the jury was not instructed on
either the natural and probable consequences or felony-murder doctrines, then the
petitioner is ineligible for relief as a matter of law”].) And we must presume the jury
followed its instructions. (People v. McKinnon (2011) 52 Cal.4th 610, 670.)
       Section 1172.6 permits resentencing of attempted murder convictions only if the
person was convicted of “attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) The jury in defendant’s trial was not given a natural and
probable consequence instruction, and instead was required to find defendant personally
harbored the intent to kill to find him guilty of attempted murder. (See CALCRIM
No. 600.) This finding renders him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter
of law, and the trial court properly denied defendant’s petition on this basis. (See People
v. Harden, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 52.)

                                               3
                                    DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing under section
1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                    /s/
                                                EARL, P. J.

We concur:

    /s/
RENNER, J.

    /s/
MESIWALA, J.

                                           4