Opinion
B323379
05-04-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAVEN HALL, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard Lennon and Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Count, No. BA461802-01 Eleanor J. Hunter, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Lennon and Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STRATTON, P. J.
Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we review this appeal from the denial of a petition for resentencing. We grant appellant's request for judicial notice of the Court of Appeal opinion affirming the conviction of appellant's codefendant Zekiah Settles (People v. Zekiah Settles (Dec. 3, 2021, B303705) [nonpub. opn.]). (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subds. (a), (c); 452, subd. (d).) We affirm the trial court's order.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2019, appellant Raven Hall entered into a plea agreement with the People whereby she agreed to plead no contest to second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, admit street gang allegations as to both counts, and testify truthfully at co-defendant Zekiah Settles's trial. In exchange, the People agreed to an aggregate sentence of 21 years in state prison and to dismissal of the murder charge. Appellant advised the court that she had discussed the case with her attorney. The court found a factual basis for the plea, accepted the plea, and found appellant guilty. After her testimony, appellant was sentenced to 21 years pursuant to the agreement and the murder charge was dismissed.
On March 4, 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95). The trial court appointed counsel and on July 15, 2022, denied the petition, stating "The court finds that the defendant is not eligible for relief because the defendant was convicted under the current law." Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On February 6, 2023, counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo. Counsel raises no issues and advises that they told appellant she may file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Counsel also advises that they intend to send appellant transcripts of the record on appeal as well as a copy of the brief.
On February 7, 2023, this court sent appellant a notice that a brief raising no issues had been filed on her behalf. We advised appellant she had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any ground for an appeal she wishes this court to consider. Appellant was advised that if she did not file a supplemental brief, her appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
On March 16, 2023, appellant filed a supplemental brief. She raises three issues: 1) she believes under the changes wrought by Senate Bill No. 1437, she "would have never been charged or arrested for murder"; 2) she "only took a plea deal because a judge told me before we [were] set to start trial if I did not take a deal and was found guilty she would give me the max"; and 3) she asks "that the court treat this claim as a writ of Habeas Corpus."
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
These facts are taken from the Probation Officer's Report. On April 4, 2017, Cody M. sustained a gunshot wound to his left leg as a result of a drive-by shooting. Codefendant Zekiah Settles was standing with Cody M. when he was shot. One hour later, victim Kevin C. was standing on a street corner with two others when they were approached by codefendant Settles who asked them where they were from. One of the group responded with the name of a gang rival to Settles's gang. Settles produced a handgun and fired into the group, killing Kevin C. Appellant had driven Settles to the scene, waited on a nearby street, and drove Settles away after the shooting. Upon her arrest, appellant admitted she happened to witness the first drive-by shooting of Cody M. and she followed the shooter for a short while in her own car. She also admitted she drove Settles to the scene of the second shooting, waited for Settles when he left the car, picked him up after the second shooting, and fled the scene with him in her car.
Hall testified at Settles's trial pursuant to her plea agreement. We described her testimony in our opinion affirming Settles's conviction. "Raven Hall, a 19-year-old member of the 112 Neighborhood Crips, also associated with the Rolling 50s gang, was present at the shooting. She testified at trial pursuant to a plea agreement. According to Hall, McCoy and [Settles] were in the front yard of a house and began making gang signs as a car drove by. Someone in the car started shooting. Hall, who was in her gold Lexus with two other people, followed the car with the shooter. She eventually realized that others were also following the car, and decided to return to McCoy's house. Along the way, she picked up Noshi Hughes, a member of the Rollings 30s. The various Rolling O's gangs are aligned with each other.
"[Settles] asked Hall for a ride, and she agreed. At [Settles's] direction, Hall drove him, Hughes, and McCoy into an area claimed by the 62 Brims. At 60th and Vermont, Hughes pointed to a girl and asked [Settles] if he saw her. [Settles] looked, then told Hall to pull over. Hall eventually parked in an alley as directed by [Settles].
"[Settles] got out and walked toward Vermont. According to Hall, Hughes said the girl she had pointed out had been involved in [Settles's uncle's recent gang-related shooting] death.
"Hall noticed a man taking out some trash. The man asked Hall for her phone number. Hall gave him her name but not her number. The man walked out of the alley. Hall heard gunshots. The man returned and said, 'He just did his shit. That nigger just did his shit.'
"[Settles] returned and got into the back seat of the car. He put a Glock into the pocket of his hoodie. Hall drove out of the alley. [Settles] said he 'had to' because the girl had 'set up' his uncle. He said he was sorry. Hall dropped [Settles] and McCoy off at McCoy's house, then dropped Hughes off and went home." (People v. Zekiah Settles, supra, B303705.)
DISCUSSION
We note that in reviewing a section 1172.6 petition the court may rely on "the procedural history of the case recited in any prior appellate opinion." (§ 1172.6, subd. (d)(3); People v. Clements (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 276, 293.) The role of the appellate opinion is limited, however, and the court may not rely on factual summaries contained in prior appellate decisions or engage in fact finding at the prima facie stage. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972.) We note as well that appellant does not dispute her role as the driver, not the actual shooter, in the events underlying the charges.
Section 1172.6 became effective January 1, 2019. (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 50-51.) The charging document alleged that the crimes occurred on April 4, 2017, before the effective date of section 1172.6. However, the Information to which appellant pled no contest was filed on February 27, 2019 and amended on August 27, 2019. Appellant entered her no contest plea on August 27, 2019. It appears the amended Information was filed and the plea was taken after the effective date of the statute.
We reject appellant's first contention that she could not have been charged with murder under the new law. The new law eliminated the doctrine of natural and probable consequences but did not change the elements of aiding and abetting murder or manslaughter. (People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 588, 595596 ["[o]ne who directly aids and abets another who commits murder is . . . liable for murder under the new law just as he or she was liable under the old law."].) To be eligible for resentencing under section 1176.2, a defendant must show that she "could not be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made" in Senate Bill No. 1437. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3), italics added.) There were no changes to the elements of aiding and abetting and therefore appellant's conviction by plea under an aiding and abetting theory remains just as valid under the new law as it was under the old law. And appellant does not contend her plea is invalid under the old law.
Appellant next contends she would not have accepted the plea agreement but for a judge's statement that she would be sentenced to more time if she were convicted after a jury trial. This contention is not properly raised in an appeal from the denial of a 1172.6 petition. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [the mere filing of a section 1172.6 petition does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error].)
Third, we decline to exercise our discretion to treat this appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
We are not otherwise required to conduct an independent review of the record in the context of an appeal from an order denying a petition for resentencing filed pursuant to section 1172.6 and we decline to do so. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: GRIMES, J. WILEY, J.