Court Opinion

ID: 9390021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 18:03:04.19117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.100431
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/26/23 P. v. Bentley CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 2d Crim. No. B321420
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. BA224537)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County)

 v.

 JOSEPH BENTLEY,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Joseph Bentley appeals the order of the trial court denying
his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section
1172.61 (former section 1170.95).2 We appointed counsel to
represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the
record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and
requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People v.

         1   All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

        Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered
         2
section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed his
own supplemental brief, in propria persona. We affirm.
                 Facts and Procedural Background3
        In 2002, a jury convicted appellant of the first degree
murder of Alvin Green (§ 187, subd. (a), count 1), along with the
attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murders of Lenist
Johnson, Jason Payne, and Devon Brown (§§ 664/187, subd. (a),
counts 2, 3, & 4), all in a gang-related shooting. Appellant and
his codefendant confronted members of a rival gang in a shopping
center parking lot. The rival gang members quickly left in their
car. Appellant and his codefendant chased them. With appellant
driving, his codefendant leaned out of the passenger side window
and fired 25 to 30 shots at the victims’ car. One of the bullets
struck Green in the neck, killing him. The jury also found true a
special circumstance allegation that the murder “was intentional
and perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor
vehicle, intentionally at another person . . . with the intent to
inflict death.” (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(21).)
       We affirmed the conviction in a nonpublished opinion.
(Bentley I., supra, B163959.)
       In 2019, appellant filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) and
section 1172.6. The petition was denied. On appeal, we affirmed
the order denying resentencing. (Bentley II., supra, 55
Cal.App.5th 150.)

      3 The following facts are taken from our nonpublished
opinion on direct appeal, People v. Bentley (Jan. 21, 2004,
B163959) [nonpub. opn.]) (Bentley I.) and People v. Bentley (2020)
55 Cal.App.5th 150 (Bentley II.), review granted, Dec. 16, 2020,
S265455, review dismissed and remanded, Dec. 15, 2021.

                                2
       In 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (S.B. 775)
and section 1172.6. The trial court summarily denied the
petition.
                              Discussion
       Because the instant appeal is from an order denying
postconviction relief rather than a first appeal as of right from a
criminal conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent
review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-
222, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119
[independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to
first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th
496, 503.) However, he is entitled to appellate consideration of
any contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo,
at p. 232; Serrano, at p. 503.)
       In his supplemental brief, appellant contends he is entitled
to relief because S.B. 775 “grants relief to defendants convicted
under the felony-murder and natural and probable consequences
doctrines or any other theory (e.g.[,] Aiding and Abetting) which
attributes malice to an individual based on his participation in a
crime.”
       This contention is meritless. S.B. 775 did not expand
eligibility for relief pursuant to section 1172.6 to one who directly
aids and abets murder or attempted murder because such
persons know and share the murderous intent of the actual
perpetrator. (People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111.)
       Appellant also contends he is entitled to an evidentiary
hearing pursuant to People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698. But

                                 3
appellant’s reliance on Strong is misplaced because, unlike
appellant, Strong was convicted of special circumstance felony
murder. (Ibid.)
      As we have previously stated, “[a]s a matter of law,
appellant is not eligible for resentencing under section [1172.6]
because he was not convicted of felony murder or murder
pursuant to a natural and probable consequences theory.”
(Bentley II., supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 153.)
                              Disposition
      The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.6 is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     YEGAN, J.
We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                                 4
                   Mildred Escobedo, Judge
             Superior Court County of Los Angeles
               ______________________________

     Richard B. Lennon and Dee A. Hayashi, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.