Court Opinion

ID: 9403358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 22:03:26.362923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.473932
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/20/23 P. v. Rael 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                     B308169

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. VA-106907-03
         v.

LOUIS ALAN RAEL,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles Count, Lee W. Tsao, Judge. Affirmed.

     Valerie G. Wass, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                    ——————————
       We review this appeal pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We affirm the order of the
trial court denying appellant’s petition for resentencing.
        On January 31, 2011, a jury convicted appellant Louis
Alan Rael of second degree murder and found a gang
enhancement true. (Pen. Code1 §§ 187, subd. (a); 186.22,
subd. (b)(1)(C).) Appellant was sentenced to state prison for
15 years to life, with minimum parole ineligibility of 15 years.
On appeal, we modified the judgment by reversing the gang
enhancement and striking the allegation and 15-year minimum
parole eligibility requirement. As modified, we affirmed the
judgment. (People v. Rael (Oct. 11, 2012, B232796) [nonpub.
opn.].)
       As recited in our opinion affirming appellant’s conviction,
appellant drove the actual killer to and from the crime scene
where the victim was fatally shot.
       On February 25, 2019, appellant filed a petition for
resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95, now section 1172.6.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) On September 23, 2020, the trial court
summarily denied the petition and appellant timely appealed.
The trial court found appellant ineligible for resentencing
because he was not prosecuted under the felony murder or
natural and probable consequences theories of liability.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
       We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On
March 4, 2021, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. We
dismissed appellant’s appeal. Appellant filed a petition for
review.

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
      On March 29, 2023, the California Supreme Court
transferred the matter back to this court “with directions to
vacate its decision and reconsider whether to exercise its
discretion to conduct an independent review of the record or
provide any other relief in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216, 232–233 & fn. 6. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.528(d).)” We now conduct an independent review.
      The trial court properly denied appellant’s petition.
Petitions for resentencing under section 1172.6 carry out the
intent of Senate Bill 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), which was “to
ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is
not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not
a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with
reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1,
subd. (f); People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967.) Petitions
under section 1172.6, then, address convictions where a
defendant was not the killer, but was held vicariously liable on
one of several theories of liability identified in the statute. Those
theories are the felony murder rule and the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. (Lewis, at pp. 957, 967.) Our review of
the record reveals that the jury was not instructed on either
theory and was instead instructed on the theory of aiding and
abetting. Because he was convicted on the theory of aiding and
abetting, appellant is ineligible for resentencing.

                                  3
                         DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                                       STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             WILEY, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                              4