Opinion
B330343
12-18-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL DAVID HARRISON, Defendant and Appellant.
Susan L. Jordan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. A-020776-01, James D. Otto, Judge. Affirmed.
Susan L. Jordan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
RUBIN, P. J.
Defendant Michael David Harrison appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former 1170.95). We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In 1980, a jury convicted defendant of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and found true the allegation that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5). The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years of life plus two years for the firearm enhancement. As far as the record in this case discloses, there was no direct appeal. Defendant has filed numerous writs of habeas corpus, all of which have been denied.
On January 11, 2023, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 on his own behalf. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant.
The People opposed defendant's petition arguing that defendant was convicted as the actual killer and that the jury was not instructed on felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or any other theory of imputed malice.
On April 11, 2023, defendant filed a reply to the People's opposition.
At the April 12, 2023, hearing on defendant's petition, the parties submitted on their briefing, and the trial court summarily denied defendant's petition. The court stated, "without the need to consider the record of conviction, the jury instruction and the verdict establish the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, that it was under a version of murder that could today be prosecuted by the jury."
Defendant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief identifying no arguable issues and requesting that we follow the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).
On October 9, 2023, we notified defendant that appointed counsel had filed a brief that raises no issues and that defendant had 30 days to submit a supplemental brief.
On October 26, 2023, defendant filed a supplemental brief, raising various arguments. We limit our review to the issues raised in defendant's supplemental brief. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 [Court of Appeal is required to evaluate specific arguments presented in a defendant's supplemental brief, but need not conduct an independent review of record to identify unraised issues].) None of defendant's arguments in his supplemental brief pertains to his eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6. For example, he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective, and that he was erroneously convicted of murder based on "false evidence." Such arguments do not bear on whether he could "presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019" (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3)). (See, e.g., People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438 [section 1172.6 "does not permit a petitioner to establish eligibility on the basis of alleged trial error"].)
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: MOOR, J. KIM, J.