People v. Munguia CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF132924
- Trial judge
- John D. Molloy
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Truc T. Do
Analysis
The trial court summarily denied Munguia's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, ruling that the statute does not apply to convictions for attempted murder. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, holding that Munguia was ineligible for relief as a matter of law and that the exclusion of attempted murder convictions does not violate equal protection.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95“We will follow the uniform holdings of the Courts of Appeal that section 1170.95 does not apply to convictions for attempted murder and such conclusion does not implicate equal protection.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the de novo standard of review to a question of law regarding statutory eligibility. It relied on a consistent line of Court of Appeal precedent (Lopez, Larios, Munoz, Medrano, Alaybue) establishing that section 1170.95 is limited to murder convictions and does not extend to attempted murder, thereby supporting the trial court's summary denial. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830 — Senate Bill 1437 was enacted to amend the felony murder rule and natural and probable consequences doctrine to ensure murder liability is not imposed on persons who are not actual killers, did not act with intent to kill, or were not major participants acting with reckless indifference.
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Section 1170.95 provides an opportunity for persons already convicted of murder to seek resentencing if their convictions were based on now impermissible theories of liability; courts may summarily deny petitions where the petitioner is not eligible as a matter of law.
- relied: People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to convictions for attempted murder, and this exclusion does not violate equal protection.
- relied: People v. Larios (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 956 — Section 1170.95 is specific to murder convictions only, and persons convicted of attempted murder are not eligible for resentencing under the statute.
- relied: People v. Munoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to attempted murder convictions, and the exclusion does not violate equal protection.
- relied: People v. Medrano (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1001 — Section 1170.95 is specific to murder convictions only, and persons convicted of attempted murder are not eligible for resentencing under the statute.
- relied: People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207 — Section 1170.95 is specific to murder convictions only, and persons convicted of attempted murder are not eligible for resentencing under the statute.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the issue as a question of law and applies the established de novo standard. It relies on a uniform body of Court of Appeal precedent to support the conclusion that section 1170.95 does not apply to attempted murder, while acknowledging pending Supreme Court review on the same issues.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court summarily denied Salvador Munguia's Penal Code section 1170.95 resentencing petition on the ground that the statute does not apply to attempted murder convictions. The Court of Appeal, following the then-uniform Court of Appeal decisions and acknowledging pending Supreme Court review, held Munguia ineligible as a matter of law, rejected his equal protection challenge, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary denial of section 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage because the statute does not extend to convictions for attempted murder“The trial court summarily denied the petition on the grounds section 1170.95 does not apply to convictions for attempted murder.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The opinion treats the question as a pure issue of statutory law and relies on People v. Lewis for the proposition that a petition may be summarily denied at the prima facie stage when the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law. As of September 2021, every published Court of Appeal decision (Lopez, Larios, Munoz, Medrano, Alaybue) had held the text of section 1170.95 was limited to murder convictions; the court's result follows those authorities. The later legislative extension to attempted murder (Senate Bill 775) postdates this opinion and does not show error on the law as it then stood. |
Rejection of the claim that excluding attempted murder convictions from section 1170.95 relief violates equal protection“The courts also have determined that the exclusion of an attempted murder conviction from the application of section 1170.95 does not violate equal protection.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court adopts the equal protection analyses in Lopez and Munoz without independent discussion. Those decisions applied rational basis review and found legitimate legislative reasons for distinguishing murder from attempted murder in a retroactive resentencing scheme; the conclusion is consistent with the authorities cited, though the opinion itself supplies little reasoning of its own. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830 — Senate Bill 1437 amended the felony murder rule and natural and probable consequences doctrine as they relate to murder to limit murder liability for non-killers lacking intent to kill or reckless indifference.
- relied: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — Section 1170.95 provides a resentencing procedure for persons convicted of murder on now-invalid theories; a petition may be summarily denied at the prima facie stage where the petitioner is ineligible as a matter of law.
- relied: People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087 — Section 1170.95 does not apply to attempted murder convictions, and excluding them does not violate equal protection.
- relied: People v. Larios (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 956 — Persons convicted of attempted murder are not eligible for section 1170.95 resentencing.
- relied: People v. Munoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738 — Section 1170.95 is limited to murder convictions and the exclusion of attempted murder survives equal protection scrutiny.
- relied: People v. Medrano (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1001 — Section 1170.95 resentencing relief is unavailable for attempted murder convictions.
- relied: People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207 — Section 1170.95 does not extend to convictions for attempted murder.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is consistent with every published Court of Appeal decision then existing and with Lewis's rule allowing summary denial of legally ineligible petitioners, so the disposition is defensible on the law as of the filing date. The opinion is thin, however: it does not engage Munguia's specific arguments, relies largely on decisions pending Supreme Court review, and does not address whether counsel was appointed or briefing received as Lewis requires before a prima facie denial (though any such error would be harmless given legal ineligibility).
Opinion
Filed 9/29/21 P. v. Munguia 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, D078641
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF132924)
SALVADOR MUNGUIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Robert Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and James H. Flaherty III, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This case arises from the trial court’s denial of a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 We will again address the questions of whether that section applies to persons who have been convicted of attempted murder and whether denying access to section 1170.95 relief to such persons would deny equal protection. We will follow the uniform holdings of the Courts of Appeal that section 1170.95 does not apply to convictions for attempted murder and such conclusion does not implicate equal protection. We are aware our Supreme Court has granted review in a number of appeals on these issues. Ultimately, the court will provide guidance. Pending further direction from the high court, we will follow the analysis of the appellate courts.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In 2009, a jury convicted Munguia and his co-defendant of attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)); assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); and actively participating in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found the crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that Munguia was a principal and that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)). Munguia was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life plus seven years in prison. Munguia appealed, and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion, People v. Munguia et al. (Dec. 21, 2010, D056080).
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 The issues presented here are questions of law. The facts of the underlying offenses are not relevant to our analysis. 2 In 2020, Munguia filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court summarily denied the petition on the grounds section 1170.95 does not apply to convictions for attempted murder. Munguia appeals contending the court and all of the appellate court opinions on the question of the applicability of section 1170.95 to attempted murder convictions are wrong. We disagree and will find the court correctly found Munguia ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law. DISCUSSION Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 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. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842.) The legislation modified sections 188 and 189 to modify the manner in which malice aforethought is to be proved. The act also created section 1170.95 to provide an opportunity for persons already convicted of murder to seek resentencing if their convictions were on a now impermissible theory of liability for murder. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.) Section 1170.95, subdivision (c) provides: “The court shall review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of this section. If the petitioner has requested counsel, the court shall appoint counsel to represent the petitioner. The prosecutor shall file and serve a response within 60 days of service of the petition and the petitioner may file and serve a reply within 30 days after the prosecutor response is served. These deadlines shall be extended for good 3 cause. If the petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief, the court shall issue an order to show cause.” Thus, there are two different applications of the modification to the law of murder as enacted by Senate Bill 1437. The first are changes that impact future prosecutions and the manner in which malice may be proved. The second approach, as represented by this appeal, is potential resentencing for persons already convicted of murder. At the prima facie stage of review of a petition for resentencing, courts may summarily deny the petition where the person is not eligible as a matter of law. (People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 970-971.) The Courts of Appeal are divided on the question of whether Senate Bill 1437 impacts future prosecutions for attempted murder. However, the courts have consistently held section 1170.95 is specific to murder convictions only and that persons convicted of attempted murder are not eligible for resentencing under the statute. (People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1104-1105, review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S258175; People v. Larios (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 956, 968-970, review granted Feb. 26, 2020, S259983; People v. Munoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738, 754, review granted Nov. 26, 2019, S258234; People v. Medrano (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1001, 1016-1018, review granted Mar. 11, 2020 S259948; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 222-225.) The courts also have determined that the exclusion of an attempted murder conviction from the application of section 1170.95 does not violate equal protection. (Lopez, at pp. 1109-1112; People v. Munoz, at pp. 760-768.) We think these cases have accurately assessed the applicability of section 1170.95 to past convictions for attempted murder. Pending different directions from the Supreme Court, we will follow the existing Court of 4 Appeal decisions and affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Munguia’s petition for resentencing. DISPOSITION The order denying Munguia’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
DO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Lewis S260598 · 2021-07-26
- People v. Gentile S256698 · 2020-12-17