People v. Albarran CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077893 · 2021-06-09 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF060734
Trial judge: John D. Molloy
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:07Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Albarran's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, ruling that his convictions for voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder did not qualify for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that the statute applies only to those convicted of murder, not manslaughter or attempted murder.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 for voluntary manslaughter conviction “We continue to hold to the views we expressed in Turner. For the reasons set forth in Turner, we once again hold that a person convicted by plea of voluntary manslaughter is not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 for attempted murder convictions “For the reasons stated in the multiple opinions, we again reject the contentions and find the trial court correctly found Albarran was not entitled to relief under section 1170.95.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719 — The essential predicate for relief under section 1170.95 is a conviction for murder or a plea in a case prosecuted on a felony murder or natural consequences theory.
relied: People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428 — A person convicted by plea of voluntary manslaughter is not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95, and such denial does not violate equal protection.
relied: People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to persons convicted of manslaughter after being charged with murder.
relied: People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914 — Section 1170.95 does not provide relief for manslaughter convictions.
relied: People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to manslaughter convictions.
relied: People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to manslaughter convictions.
relied: People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to manslaughter convictions.
relied: People v. Munoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738 — Section 1170.95 applies only to persons previously convicted of murder.
relied: People v. Dennis (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 838 — Section 1170.95 does not provide relief for persons convicted of only attempted murder.
relied: People v. Sanchez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 637 — Section 1170.95 does not provide relief for persons convicted of only attempted murder.
relied: People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207 — Section 1170.95 does not provide relief for persons convicted of only attempted murder.
relied: People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 — The Supreme Court has granted review to determine if Senate Bill 1437 applies to attempted murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that Section 1170.95 is limited to murder convictions and relies on a substantial body of unpublished and published appellate authority to reject the argument that manslaughter or attempted murder convictions qualify. The court appropriately defers to the pending Supreme Court review on the attempted murder issue while affirming based on the current unanimous appellate consensus.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence medium

The Riverside County Superior Court denied Marcos Albarran's pro. per. petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, finding that his plea-based convictions for voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder did not qualify him for relief because the statute reaches only murder convictions. The Court of Appeal affirmed, following its own decision in People v. Turner and a line of published decisions holding that the statute as then written did not extend to manslaughter or attempted murder and that excluding manslaughter did not violate equal protection.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1170.95 petition as to the voluntary manslaughter conviction on the ground that only persons convicted of murder are eligible “For the reasons set forth in Turner, we once again hold that a person convicted by plea of voluntary manslaughter is not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court did not articulate a standard of review, but eligibility turned on statutory interpretation, a legal question. As of June 2021, section 1170.95, subdivision (a) by its terms applied to persons 'convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory,' and every published Court of Appeal decision (Turner, Flores, Cervantes, Sanchez, Paige, Harris) had held manslaughter convictions were outside the statute. The court's reliance on that unanimous authority was correct under the law then in effect; the later legislative expansion by Senate Bill No. 775 postdates this opinion and does not make the ruling erroneous when made.
Rejection of the claim that excluding voluntary manslaughter convictions from section 1170.95 relief violates equal protection “We further hold that denial of eligibility for relief to persons convicted of voluntary manslaughter does not violate equal protection.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court adopted by reference the equal protection analysis in Turner and the other cited cases, which held that persons convicted of murder and persons convicted of manslaughter are not similarly situated and that the Legislature's decision to address murder liability first has a rational basis. That reasoning was consistent with the published authority at the time and the court identified no contrary binding authority. The opinion does not independently restate the analysis, but incorporation of its own prior published reasoning is adequate.
Denial of section 1170.95 petition as to the three attempted murder convictions “the appellate courts have been in agreement that section 1170.95 does not provide relief for persons convicted of only attempted murder.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court correctly distinguished between the effect of Senate Bill No. 1437's amendments to sections 188 and 189 on nonfinal attempted murder cases (then pending before the Supreme Court in Lopez) and the separate question of whether the section 1170.95 petition remedy reached attempted murder convictions. On the latter question the court accurately noted that published decisions (Munoz, Dennis, Sanchez, Alaybue) were uniform that the statute applied only to murder convictions. Several cited cases had review granted, but citation for persuasive value was permitted under rule 8.1115(e)(1), and Alaybue was not under review. The conclusion was correct under the statute as then written.

Authorities

relied: People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719 — Senate Bill No. 1437 was enacted to amend the felony murder rule and natural and probable consequences doctrine as they relate to murder; section 1170.95 relief presupposes a murder conviction.
relied: People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428 — A defendant convicted by plea of voluntary manslaughter is not eligible for section 1170.95 relief, and that exclusion does not violate equal protection.
relied: People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to persons convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
relied: People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884 — Section 1170.95 relief is limited to murder convictions and does not extend to manslaughter pleas.
relied: People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914 — Manslaughter convictions are outside section 1170.95 and excluding them does not violate equal protection.
relied: People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194 — Section 1170.95 does not provide relief to defendants who pleaded to voluntary manslaughter.
relied: People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557 — Section 1170.95 does not reach manslaughter convictions and the exclusion survives equal protection challenge.
relied: People v. Munoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738 — Section 1170.95's petition remedy applies only to murder convictions, not attempted murder (review granted).
relied: People v. Dennis (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 838 — Section 1170.95 does not afford relief for attempted murder convictions (review granted).
relied: People v. Sanchez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 637 — Section 1170.95 petition procedure is unavailable to persons convicted of attempted murder (review granted).
relied: People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207 — Section 1170.95 does not extend to attempted murder convictions.
relied: People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 — Cited for the issue pending in the Supreme Court on whether Senate Bill No. 1437 applies to attempted murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine (review granted).

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies the dispositive statutory text and follows a unanimous body of published authority, including the court's own prior decision in Turner, which directly answered every argument the appellant raised. It is brief and largely incorporates prior reasoning by reference rather than restating it, but that is adequate where the appellant conceded the case law was virtually unanimous and asked only that it be overruled.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/9/21 P. v. Albarran 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, D077893

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. INF060734)

MARCOS ANTONIO ALBARRAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia A. Scott, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Heather M. Clark, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013, a jury convicted Marcos Antonio Albarran of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted murder (§§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)), among other offenses. Albarran appealed and this court reversed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Albarran (July 6, 2015, D067418) [nonpub. opn.].) The case was remanded to the superior court. On remand, Albarran entered into a plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter for the benefit of a street gang. (§§ 192 & 186.22, subd. (b).) He also admitted three counts of attempted murder. (§§ 187 & 664.) Albarran was sentenced to a determinate term of 16 years in prison. In June 2020, Albarran filed a pro. per. petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. Although he was not convicted of murder, he contended he was still entitled to resentencing. The trial court denied the petition, finding Albarran’s convictions for manslaughter and attempted murder did not qualify him for relief under section 1170.95. Albarran appeals, contending his convictions for manslaughter and attempted murder are eligible for resentencing because he was originally prosecuted under theories of felony murder and natural and probable consequences. His briefs on appeal acknowledge existing case law is virtually unanimous that the essential predicate for relief under this particular statute is a conviction for either first or second degree murder. He contends that all of the cases reaching such conclusions were wrongly decided. We will reject Albarran’s arguments and follow the cases from this court and others which have soundly rejected his arguments and affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 DISCUSSION I The Manslaughter Conviction Senate Bill No. 1437 “was enacted ‘to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.’ ” (People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723 (Martinez).) Section 1170.95 was created to permit defendants convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to file a petition for resentencing to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).) The beginning point of the analysis of Senate Bill No. 1437 is that the defendant must have been convicted of murder or by plea in a case prosecuted on a felony murder or natural consequences theory. (Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 723.) In this case Albarran was not convicted of murder, and his conviction did not arise from an offense where malice is an element of the crime. Thus, Albarran is not a person aggrieved by the former methods of proving malice that the Legislature has now rejected. The arguments that the statute applies to persons convicted of manslaughter after being charged with murder or that the failure to apply the statute to manslaughter convictions would violate equal protection have been soundly rejected by the courts of appeal, including the following cases: 1) People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557, 565-571 [Fourth Appellate District, Division Two]; 2) People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 916, 918-921 [Fourth Appellate District, Division Two]; 3) People v. Paige (2020)

3 51 Cal.App.5th 194, 197-198 [First Appellate District, Division Two]; 4) People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428, 435-439 (Turner) [Fourth Appellate District, Division One]; 5) People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985, 992-997 [Fourth Appellate District, Division One]; and 6) People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884, 887-888 [Second Appellate District, Division Six]. We have reviewed the cases listed above, all of which have rejected all of Albarran’s arguments. We agree with the analysis in each of the cases. In Turner, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at pages 435 through 439, this court analyzed the arguments that are now presented in this appeal. We carefully considered the same arguments and found them to not be persuasive. We continue to hold to the views we expressed in Turner. For the reasons set forth in Turner, we once again hold that a person convicted by plea of voluntary manslaughter is not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. We further hold that denial of eligibility for relief to persons convicted of voluntary manslaughter does not violate equal protection. II The Attempted Murder Convictions Senate Bill No. 1437 substantially modifies the definitions on malice in murder cases. It alters the definitions as far as they involve aiders and abettors who are prosecuted under felony murder. (See §§ 188 and 189.) While new definitions of malice affect current prosecutions that are not final on appeal, the new remedy for past convictions under section 1170.95 applies only to persons who were previously convicted of murder. (People v. Munoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738, 753, review granted Nov. 26, 2019, S258234; People v. Dennis (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 838, 844-847, review granted July 29, 2020, S262184; People v. Sanchez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 637, 642-644, review 4 granted June 10, 2020, S261768; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 222.) There are some differences between the courts on the issue of the impact of the changes in definitions of malice on non-final cases, but the appellate courts have been in agreement that section 1170.95 does not provide relief for persons convicted of only attempted murder. Our Supreme Court has granted review in a number of cases to determine the effect of Senate Bill No. 1437 on the elements of attempted murder. The court has framed the issue as “Does Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) apply to attempted murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine?” (People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087, review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S258175.) Given the number of courts which have rejected Albarran’s arguments, including this court, we will not revisit the discussions from those cases. Suffice that we agree with the unanimous rejections of the arguments Albarran makes here. For the reasons stated in the multiple opinions, we again reject the contentions and find the trial court correctly found Albarran was not entitled to relief under section 1170.95.

5 DISPOSITION The order denying Albarran’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O'ROURKE, J.