Court Opinion

ID: 9956652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 18:02:03.397813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:42.510148
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/2/24 P. v. Ranieri 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B332033
                                                                          (Super. Ct. No. KA031043)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                              (Los Angeles County)

v.

STEPHEN RANIERI,

     Defendant and Appellant.

       Stephen Ranieri appeals the trial court’s denial of his
motion for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6
(formerly § 1170.95).1 Appellate counsel filed an opening brief
informing this court that she reviewed the record and could not
find any arguable issues to raise on appeal. Counsel requested
that we send the opening brief to Ranieri and inform him of his
right to file a supplemental letter or brief. We so informed
Ranieri and he filed a supplemental letter. We have evaluated
the supplemental letter and find no issues of merit. (People v.

         1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232 [when appellate counsel
has found no arguable issues and the appellant submits a
supplemental brief or letter, “the Court of Appeal is required to
evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to
issue a written opinion”].) Accordingly, we conclude that the
court properly denied Ranieri’s resentencing motion, and affirm.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
       This appeal concerns the 1996 willful, premeditated, and
deliberate attempted murder of Demond White following an
altercation during a basketball game at a Covina park. When
Ranieri retrieved a firearm from a blanket, White and the other
basketball players ran away. Ranieri followed White, and shot at
him.
       A jury convicted Ranieri of willful, premeditated, and
deliberate attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
(§§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(2).) It also found that he
personally used a firearm during commission of the crimes.
(§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) In a separate proceeding, the trial court
found that Ranieri suffered two prior serious felony and strike
convictions. (§§ 667, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds.
(a)-(d).) Ranieri received a prison sentence of 45 years to life. We
affirmed the conviction in People v. Ranieri, supra, B114080.
       At Ranieri’s trial, the court instructed regarding the
elements of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted
murder, including the requirement of specific intent to kill.
(CALJIC No. 3.31.) The court did not instruct regarding felony

      2 Our factual summary is derived from the unpublished

opinion in Ranieri’s direct appeal. (People v. Ranieri (June 17,
1999, B114080).)

                                  2
murder, the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or any
theory of imputed malice.
       On October 3, 2022, Ranieri brought a motion for
resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6. He asserted that his
conviction rested upon a natural and probable consequences
doctrine. Ranieri also denied acting with malice or reckless
indifference to human life.
       The trial court denied the motion at the prima facie stage,
stating that Ranieri was “the actual shooter.” The court
concluded that the jury was not instructed regarding felony
murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. It
therefore decided that Ranieri is ineligible for resentencing as a
matter of law because his conviction did not rest upon any theory
of imputed malice.
       Ranieri’s counsel has requested that we undertake an
independent review of the record. We decline this invitation and
instead briefly respond to the argument Ranieri raises in his
supplemental brief. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216,
231-232.)
                             DISCUSSION
       A person is entitled to resentencing relief pursuant to
section 1172.6 if (1) “[a] complaint, information, or indictment
was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to
proceed under a theory of felony murder [or] murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine”; (2) the petitioner
“was convicted of murder”; and (3) the petitioner “could not
presently be convicted of murder . . . because of changes to
Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (Id., subd.
(a)(1)-(3).) In January 2019, our Legislature amended section 188
to provide that “in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in

                                3
a crime shall act with malice aforethought” and that “[m]alice
shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his . . .
participation in a crime.” (Id., subd. (a)(3), as amended by Stats.
2018, ch. 1015, § 2.) The amendment ensures that murder
liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer,
did not act with the intent to kill, nor was not a major participant
in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to
human life. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.)
       Effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature amended section
1172.6 to include the crime of attempted murder under the
natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Stats. 2021, ch.
551, § 2.)
       The trial court may consider the defendant’s record of
conviction, including the court’s own documents, in assessing
whether he has made a prima facie case for relief pursuant to
section 1172.6. (People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972
[record of conviction includes jury summations, jury instructions,
verdict forms, and prior appellate opinions].) Here the court’s
jury instructions rested upon willful, premeditated, and
deliberate attempted murder, not any theories of imputed malice.
The court also instructed regarding the requirement of specific
intent to kill. (People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 547-
548.)
       In his supplemental letter, Ranieri contends that his
attorney generally failed to render effective assistance of counsel.
Ranieri also claims that he merely shot his firearm into the air,
not at White. Ranieri’s contentions have no bearing on this
appeal which concerns section 1172.6 resentencing in convictions
resting upon the felony murder or natural and probable
consequences doctrines. Moreover, matters of the weight of the

                                 4
evidence are questions for the trier of fact. These matters were
determined adversely to Ranieri at trial and we do not
redetermine them. (People v. Thomas (2023) 14 Cal.5th 327,
378.)
                         DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed.
            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

             YEGAN, J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                                5
                  Jacqueline H. Lewis, Judge

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

               ______________________________

     Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.