Court Opinion

ID: 9914774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 00:01:47.039704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:27.739257
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/2/24 P. v. Loyd CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E081564

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. CR50817)

 LAMAR EUGENE LOYD,                                                      OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Lamar Eugene Loyd, in pro. per.; and Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Defendant and appellant Lamar Eugene Loyd appeals the Riverside County

Superior Court’s denial of his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.1 We

will affirm.

                                    BACKGROUND2

       In 1994, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder (§ 187) and found true

the allegation that he personally used a handgun in the commission of the crime

(§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The court sentenced him to a five-year term for the gun

enhancement, to run consecutive to a term of 25 years to life for the murder. Defendant

appealed, and we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Loyd, supra, E015314.)

       In June 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section

1172.6. The trial court set a status conference and appointed counsel for defendant. At

the May 2023 prima facie hearing on the petition, the People and defendant’s counsel

represented they had reviewed the jury instructions and agreed that no instruction had

been given on the theory of felony murder, the natural and probable consequences

doctrine, or aiding and abetting. The court denied the petition. Defendant timely noticed

this appeal from the denial.

       1 Section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6 without change in the text,
effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For the sake of simplicity, we refer to
the provision by its new numbering. All further statutory references are to the Penal
Code.

       2 On the court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of our prior opinion from
defendant’s appeal of his original judgment. (People v. Loyd (May 15, 1996, E015314)
[nonpub. opn.].)

                                             2
                                      DISCUSSION

       On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that sets

forth statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication.

Counsel requests we exercise our discretion under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th

216 to conduct an independent review of the record in appeals from denials of section

1172.6 petitions. The brief states counsel considered the following issues: (i) whether

the trial court erred when it denied the petition without first making an affirmative

statement that it had reviewed the instructions given to the jury; and, (ii) whether an issue

is presented on account of the court making its decision immediately after counsel for the

People remarked, “Not that it matters, but the defendant testified that he shot the

defendant [sic] in self-defense?”

       Upon receipt of the opening brief, we notified defendant that his counsel had filed

a brief stating counsel had not found an arguable issue and that this court is not required

to conduct an independent review of the record but may exercise its discretion to do so.

We also invited defendant to file a supplemental brief with any arguments he deemed

necessary.

       In response to our invitation, defendant filed a supplemental brief setting forth an

abbreviated history of section 1172.6 and recital of case law relating to the interpretation

of the terms “major participant” and “reckless indifference to human life.” To the extent

defendant’s discussion is intended to set forth a claim that his section 1172.6 petition was

improperly denied because the jury did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s

                                              3
clarification of those terms in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark

(2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, we are not persuaded. Those cases involved defendants who were

not actual killers of their victims but were tried and convicted on the theory that they,

with reckless indifference to human life and as major participants, aided and abetted in

the commission of a felony that resulted in a person’s death. (Banks, at pp. 794, 807-811;

Clark, at pp. 535, 601.) Here, there is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant was

tried and convicted on any theory other than he was the actual killer.

                                    DISPOSITION

       The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                RAMIREZ
                                                                                            P. J.

We concur:

MILLER
                           J.

MENETREZ
                           J.

                                              4