Court Opinion

ID: 9841277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-21 19:03:41.599004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:57.011352
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. George CA2/8
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B323545

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. BA282283
           v.

 KEENAN GEORGE,

           Defendant and Appellant.

       APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Shelly B. Torrealba, Judge. Affirmed.
       Karyn H. Bucar, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
       Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee and Michael C.
Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                       ____________________
       Keenan George appeals the trial court’s denial of his
petition for resentencing. He also argues he is entitled to
resentencing under Senate Bill No. 620 (SB 620) and Assembly
Bill No. 333 (AB 333). We affirm and hold he is not entitled to
resentencing under either SB 620 or AB 333. Statutory citations
are to the Penal Code.
      A jury convicted George of the attempted murder of Sandro
Gutierrez. The jury found true allegations George had personally
discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury and
personally inflicted great bodily injury on Gutierrez. The jury
also convicted George of assault with a firearm on a second
victim, Christopher Alexander. The jury further found George
committed both offenses for the benefit of, at the direction of, or
in association with a criminal street gang. The trial court
sentenced George to a term of 44 years to life. George appealed,
and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. George (Jul. 23,
2007, B187180 [nonpub. opn.].)
      In May 2022, George filed a petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6, previously section 1170.95. Section 1172.6
provides the mechanism by which defendants may seek the relief
offered by Senate Bill No. 1437, effective January 1, 2019 (2017–
2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1437). (Ibid.; § 1172.6.) SB 1437 narrowed
the scope of murder liability of those persons who are not the
actual killer and did not intend to kill. (People v. Strong (2022)
13 Cal.5th 698, 707-708.) Persons previously convicted who could
not be convicted under these new laws, such as those convicted on
theories of felony murder or the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, may seek retroactive relief under section
1172.6. (§ 1172.6.) Upon the filing of a facially sufficient petition
requesting appointment of counsel, a trial court must appoint
counsel and hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner
has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief. (§ 1172.6,

                                 2
subds. (b)(3) & (c).) If the petitioner makes this showing, the
court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether
relief is warranted. (§ 1172.6, subd. (d).)
       George’s petition was facially sufficient and requested
counsel. Rather than appointing counsel, the trial court reviewed
documents in the case file, including the information, the jury
instructions, the abstracts of judgment, and our unpublished
opinion affirming the judgment. Based on this review, the trial
court determined the jury had found George, the sole defendant,
was the actual shooter and so was ineligible for relief under
section 1172.6. Accordingly, the trial court summarily denied the
petition.
       George filed a second petition in July 2022. The trial court
summarily denied this petition as well, noting it added nothing to
the previous petition.
       George appealed the denial of his first petition.
       As the prosecutor concedes, the trial court erred in
summarily denying the petitions without appointing
counsel. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961-972
(Lewis).) However, this does not result in automatic reversal as
George urges. We will reverse only if it is reasonably probable
the defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had
the error not occurred. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 972-974.)
       George cannot show a different result was likely. The trial
court’s analysis was correct. (See People v. Mancilla (2021) 67
Cal.App.5th 854, 863-864 (Mancilla) [failure to appoint counsel is
harmless error if jury convicted defendant under a valid
theory].) The jury found George had “a specific intent to kill
unlawfully another human being.” (CALJIC No. 8.66.) It also
found George personally discharged the firearm causing great

                                3
bodily injury. The trial court did not instruct the jury on theories
of felony murder, the natural and probable consequences
doctrine, or any other theory under which malice is imputed to a
person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime. We
grant the prosecutor’s request for judicial notice of the jury
instructions. The jury convicted George under still-valid theories.
He is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.
       George argues there is evidence he may not have been the
shooter. This misunderstands our review under section
1172.6. Petitioners are eligible for relief only if they were
convicted under a theory that is no longer valid. (Mancilla,
supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 866-867.) George identifies no
theory like that.
       The jury could not have voted as it did unless it were
convinced George personally had fired the injuring gun. (See
People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 54-56.) We reach this
conclusion without weighing evidence or making credibility
determinations. (See People v. Pickett (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 982,
990.)
       George maintains he is entitled to resentencing under SB
620 and AB 333 because his judgment is not final, citing to People
v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152. In Padilla, the high court held
that new laws reducing punishment should be applied in
resentencing when a final conviction is vacated. (Id. at pp. 161-
163) George’s conviction has not been vacated. His judgment
remains final. He is ineligible for relief under SB 620 and AB
333. (People v. Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326 [SB
620 inapplicable to final convictions]; People v. Ramos (2022) 77
Cal.App.5th 1116, 1127 [AB 333 inapplicable to final
convictions].)

                                 4
                       DISPOSITION
     We affirm the order.

                                     WILEY, J.

We concur:

             STRATTON, P. J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                               5