Opinion
G059641
03-15-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BARBARA ANN HAMEL, Defendant and Appellant.
Randi Covin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 10CF2478) OPINION Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. Randi Covin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Appellant Barbara Ann Hamel and two codefendants were charged with the robbery and murder of Chi Bui and the attempted robbery of another victim. A jury convicted Hamel of robbery, attempted robbery, first-degree murder and found true the robbery-murder special circumstance allegation. She was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
In 2019, Hamel filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, alleging she was convicted "pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine." (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The trial court appointed counsel. After briefing and argument, the trial judge, who also presided over Hamel's criminal trial, denied the petition on the ground Hamel was the actual killer and thus ineligible for section 1170.95 relief.
Hamel appealed the denial of her section 1170.95 petition. Her appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Hamel did not file a supplemental brief. Because our review of the record discloses no arguable issues, we affirm the postjudgment order denying Hamel's section 1170.95 petition.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The underlying facts were recounted in our opinion affirming Hamel's convictions. The victim Bui died in a violent roadside robbery. An autopsy confirmed the cause of death was major blunt trauma injuries inflicted to his chest when he was run over by a vehicle. Hamel confessed she participated in the robbery and murder of Bui. Specifically, she admitted accompanying her codefendants when they intercepted Bui's car in Santa Ana. After a codefendant reentered the vehicle following the confrontation with the victim, "Hamel heard a noise and felt a thump when she drove away" from the crime scene. When she exclaimed, "'"Oh my God. What was that,"'" the codefendant told her, "'"That was him [the victim]."'" (See People v. Hamel (Dec. 14, 2017, G052068) [nonpub. opn.].)
II
DISCUSSION
Senate Bill No. 1437 (Sen. Bill 1437), which became effective January 1, 2019, 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), quoting Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f), italics added.) Sen. Bill 1437 added section 1170.95, which allows those "convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory . . . [to] file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner's murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts . . . ." (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).)
The evidence showed the victim died from being run over by a vehicle, and Hamel confessed she drove the vehicle. Hamel thus was the actual killer and accordingly, she is not entitled to relief under Sen. Bill 1437. (See People v. Tarkington (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 892, 899 [petitioner was ineligible for section 1170.95 relief because he was the actual killer].) The trial court properly denied Hamel's section 1170.95 petition.
Our review of the entire record, including the matters identified by counsel and Hamel, does not show the existence of an arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 442-443.) Consequently, we affirm. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
III
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order denying Hamel's section 1170.95 petition is affirmed.
ARONSON, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: IKOLA, J. THOMPSON, J.