People v. Murphy CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083154 · 2024-08-27 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF1501653
Trial judge: John D. Molloy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:06Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Murphy's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 and a separate motion for relief under the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA). The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the resentencing petition and dismissed the appeal from the CRJA motion as non-appealable.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court determined Murphy was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and that the jury had not been instructed on liability under the felony murder rule, the theory of natural and probable consequences, or on liability as an aider and abettor.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The court correctly applied the standard of review for a section 1172.6 petition, which is de novo. The trial court's determination that Murphy was the actual perpetrator and that the disapproved theories were not part of the prosecution's case supported the denial of the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
Denial of motion for relief under the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA) “Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion, and the order denying it is not an appealable order.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court correctly identified that the CRJA did not authorize a motion for relief until January 1, 2024, meaning the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion filed in 2023. Consequently, the order denying the motion was not an appealable order.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no meritorious issues exist, requiring the court to independently review the record.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially meritorious issues and requesting the court to independently review the record when no such issues are found.
relied: People v. Belknap (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1019 — Supports the proposition that an order denying a motion for which the court lacks jurisdiction is not an appealable order.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the jurisdictional limits of the CRJA to dismiss the non-appealable motion and correctly applies the de novo standard to affirm the denial of the section 1172.6 petition based on the trial court's factual findings. The court properly exercised its discretion to review the record under Anders/Delgadillo and found no error.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The Riverside County Superior Court denied Quentin Murphy's 2023 motion for relief under the California Racial Justice Act (Pen. Code, § 745) and, after appointing counsel and reviewing the record of conviction, denied his Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage because he was the actual perpetrator and the jury was never instructed on felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or aiding and abetting. On appeal, with a Delgadillo brief from counsel and a supplemental pro. per. brief, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the CRJA ruling as taken from a nonappealable order and affirmed the denial of the section 1172.6 petition after independently reviewing the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Murphy's 2023 motion for relief under the California Racial Justice Act (Pen. Code, § 745, subds. (b), (j)) “Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion, and the order denying it is not an appealable order.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not reach the merits; it held that because section 745, subdivision (j) phased in retroactive relief for incarcerated defendants only after the date Murphy filed, the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the denial was nonappealable, citing Belknap. The conclusion that a 2023 CRJA filing by a defendant with a final judgment was premature is consistent with the statute's staged effective dates, and an order denying a motion the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant is generally nonappealable. The opinion's one-sentence treatment of the subdivision (j) phase-in dates is cursory and does not quote the statute, so I cannot fully verify the precise date it assigned, but the result (no jurisdiction in 2023) holds under any reading of the phase-in schedule for a prisoner whose judgment was final.
Denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing “The court determined Murphy was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and that the jury had not been instructed on liability under the felony murder rule, the theory of natural and probable consequences, or on liability as an aider and abettor.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Murphy was convicted of three counts of premeditated attempted murder as the sole and actual perpetrator, and the jury instructions (part of the record of conviction a court may consult at the prima facie stage) contained no felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or aider-and-abettor theory. A petitioner convicted as the actual perpetrator with intent to kill is ineligible as a matter of law under section 1172.6, so denial without an order to show cause was proper. Murphy's supplemental brief attacked only the sufficiency of trial evidence and his guilt, which are outside the scope of a 1172.6 proceeding. The opinion does not articulate the governing de novo standard or cite People v. Lewis, but the outcome is plainly correct.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Procedures governing appointed counsel's no-issue brief in an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition; the Court of Appeal must address issues raised in a defendant's supplemental brief and may, in its discretion, independently review the record.
relied: People v. Belknap (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1019 — An order denying a postjudgment motion the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain is not an appealable order.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no arguable issues may file a brief identifying issues that might arguably support the appeal to assist the court's review.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consider the record of conviction, including jury instructions, and may deny without an order to show cause only when the record establishes ineligibility as a matter of law; review of such a denial is de novo. The opinion reached a result consistent with Lewis but did not cite it or state the standard.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly dismissed the premature CRJA appeal for lack of an appealable order and correctly affirmed the section 1172.6 denial, since an actual perpetrator convicted of premeditated attempted murder with no felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or aiding-and-abetting instructions is ineligible as a matter of law. The opinion, however, states no standard of review, does not cite People v. Lewis for the prima facie framework, and treats the section 745, subdivision (j) phase-in schedule in a single conclusory sentence.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 8/27/24 P. v. Murphy CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083154

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1501653)

QUENTIN DAMON MURPHY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Purported appeal from denial of a motion for relief under the California Racial Justice Act (CRJA) (Pen. Code, § 745,1 subds. (b), (j)), which was filed before the petition for resentencing was filed, is dismissed. Quentin Damon Murphy, in pro. per.; and Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 2017, a jury convicted Quentin Damon Murphy of one count of aggravated kidnapping (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)), three counts of premeditated attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)), stalking (§ 646.9, subd. (a)), and shooting at an inhabited building (§ 246). The jury also found true firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d). In 2018, Murphy was sentenced to 16 years four months plus 170 years to life in prison. Murphy appealed and this court affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Murphy (Mar. 1, 2019, D074702).) In 2023, Murphy filed a motion for “relief” under the CRJA (§ 745, subds (b) & (j)). The trial court denied the motion by written order filed October 10, 2023. Murphy filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his “motion.” Murphy also filed a separate petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court determined Murphy was the actual perpetrator of the offenses and that the jury had not been instructed on liability under the felony murder rule, the theory of natural and probable consequences, or on liability as an aider and abettor. The court denied the petition for resentencing without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. Murphy filed a notice of appeal from the order denying resentencing. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel has also addressed the denial of the motion for relief under the CRJA prior to 2 filing the petition in this case. Counsel does not address the merits of the motion but does address whether such motion is appealable. Dealing first with the CRJA appeal, Murphy seeks to appeal a postjudgment order denying his motion for relief under the CRJA, which was filed October 10, 2023. However, the CRJA did not authorize such a request before January 1, 2024, after which an incarcerated defendant whose judgment was imposed could file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a court of competent jurisdiction. (§ 745, subd. (b), (j).) Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion, and the order denying it is not an appealable order. (See §§ 745, 1473; People v. Belknap (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 1019, 1029.) Accordingly, the portion of the appeal purportedly taken from the denial of the motion for resentencing under the CRJA is dismissed. Returning to the appeal from the denial of the petition for resentencing, counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. Murphy was notified of his opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental brief. Murphy essentially challenges the underlying conviction and does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the order denying his petition for resentencing. He denies guilt, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, and emphasizes many “mitigating facts” about his background. This appeal is from a postjudgment order dealing with a statutory petition for resentencing. This appeal is not from a review of the underlying conviction outside the terms of section 1172.6. We dealt with the challenges to the underlying conviction in our original appeal. Murphy was the actual perpetrator and was not prosecuted on any of the theories now disapproved in 3 the resentencing statute. Murphy has not raised any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the denial of the motion for relief under the CRJA is appealable. 2. Whether the trial court erred by denying relief under the CRJA. 3. Whether the trial court erred by denying Murphy’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing. We have exercised our discretion to review the record of the resentencing petition for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Murphy on this appeal.

4 DISPOSITION The order denying the petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed. The appeal of the denial of the motion for relief under the CRJA is dismissed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Belknap Crim. 12827 · 1974-09-25