From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hall

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Aug 9, 2023
No. B324102 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023)

Opinion

B324102

08-09-2023

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHAN HALL, Defendant and Appellant.

Olivia Meme, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 County No. SA059162, Lauren Weis Birnstein, Judge.

Olivia Meme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CURREY, P. J.

In 2007, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Nathan Hall of one count of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and one count of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). With respect to each count, the jury found Hall personally used a knife. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) On the murder count, the trial court sentenced Hall to 15 years to life in state prison, enhanced by 4 years based on prior prison term allegations. On the attempted murder count, the court sentenced him to a consecutive life term, enhanced by one year for the weapon allegation.

All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

According to appellate counsel, the trial court is currently overseeing proceedings to recall and resentence Hall on the prior prison term enhancements.

In 2022, Hall filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95). The prosecution filed an opposition, arguing Hall was ineligible for relief as a matter of law, because he was the actual killer and the jury was not instructed on the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. When the prosecution filed its opposition, Hall's counsel conceded Hall was ineligible for relief. The trial court denied the petition. In doing so, the court noted Hall was the actual killer, and the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to the statute by its new code section. That section provides relief for certain individuals convicted of murder under the felony murder rule or natural and probable consequences doctrine. (See § 1172.6; Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f); People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.)

Hall timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On February 16, 2023, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting discretionary independent review of the record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Hall did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing.

Because Hall's appeal is from an order denying section 1172.6 postconviction relief, this court has no duty to independently review the record for reasonably arguable issues, and we decline to do so. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 212-222.) We therefore dismiss Hall's appeal as abandoned.

We do note, however, that because the jury was not instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences liability, the record demonstrates as a matter of law Hall is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

We concur: MORI, J. ZUKIN, J.


Summaries of

People v. Hall

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Aug 9, 2023
No. B324102 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023)
Case details for

People v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHAN HALL, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division

Date published: Aug 9, 2023

Citations

No. B324102 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2023)