Court Opinion

ID: 9556041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 22:03:58.416952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:11.424383
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/15/23 P. v. Teague CA2/1
Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B303076

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. TA024803)
           v.

 GINGIE MIIUAAN TEAGUE,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Laura R. Walton, Judge. Affirmed.
      Diane E. Berley, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General and William H. Shin, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                             ____________________________
       Defendant Gingie Miiuaan Teague appeals from the order
denying her Penal Code section 1170.95 petition (subsequently
renumbered as section 1172.6 effective June 30, 2022 (Stats.
2022, ch. 58, § 10)).1 Appointed counsel requested that this court
review the record pursuant to the procedures set forth in People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). After notice pursuant to
Wende, supra, at p. 442 of her right to file a supplemental brief,
Teague did not file a supplemental brief. On August 21, 2020,
we dismissed Teague’s appeal as abandoned based on People v.
Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023. (People v. Teague (Aug. 21,
2020, B303076) [nonpub. opn.].) The Supreme Court later
ordered the opinion in Cole vacated.
       The Supreme Court also ordered us to vacate our prior
opinion and reconsider whether to exercise our discretion to
conduct an independent review of the record or provide any relief
in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232–233
and footnote 6 (Delgadillo). We vacated our prior opinion. We
now choose to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent
review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.

                        BACKGROUND
      Teague stabbed her 82-year-old neighbor, George Samuel,
with a knife and took his radio. Samuel died from his injuries.
After a bench trial, the court convicted Teague of second degree
murder and found that she personally used a knife in the
commission of the murder. The court sentenced Teague to
16 years to life in prison.

      1All undesignated statutory citations are to the
Penal Code.

                                   2
       On May 6, 2019, Teague filed a petition for resentencing
under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), which the
People opposed. The trial court denied Teague’s resentencing
petition because, among other reasons, she was the actual killer.
Teague timely appealed.
       After the Supreme Court remanded the case to this court,
respondent filed a letter requesting this court send appellant
notice that complies with Delgadillo or independently review the
record. Teague’s counsel agreed. No party filed a supplemental
brief upon remand. Because our prior notice was “suboptimal”
under Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 222, we now
independently review the record pursuant to Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.

                         DISCUSSION
       “In Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate
Bill 1437), the Legislature significantly narrowed the scope of the
felony-murder rule. It also created a path to relief for defendants
who had previously been convicted of murder on a felony-murder
theory but who could not have been convicted under the new law.
Resentencing is available under the new law if the defendant
neither killed nor intended to kill and was not ‘a major
participant in the underlying felony [who] acted with reckless
indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of
[Penal Code] Section 190.2.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Strong (2022)
13 Cal.5th 698, 703.)
       “A section 1170.95 petition must show that: ‘(1) A
complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the
petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory
of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is

                                   3
imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in
a crime . . . . [,] [and] [¶] (2) The petitioner was convicted of
murder . . . following a trial . . . . [,] [and] [¶] (3) The petitioner
could not presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes
to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.’
[Citation.]” (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 51.)
       As a matter of law, Teague is not eligible for resentencing
relief because the record of conviction establishes that she was
the actual killer. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233 [actual
killer and only participant in the killing not entitled to any relief
under § 1172.6].) The trial court found that Teague personally
used a knife to kill Samuel. She was the only defendant charged
in the information with Samuel’s death. Therefore,
notwithstanding the changes to sections 188 and 189, Teague
was convicted under a still valid theory of murder. We have
exercised our discretion to review the entire record independently
(Delgadillo, supra, at pp. 232–233 & fn. 6), and find no arguable
issue on appeal.

                          DISPOSITION
      The order denying Teague’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                             BENDIX, J.

We concur:

      ROTHSCHILD, P. J.                      WEINGART, J.

                                      4