Opinion
G057819
12-18-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REGINALD PRATT, Defendant and Appellant.
Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 93CF1658) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.
* * *
Defendant Reginald Pratt timely appealed from a ruling by the trial court and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel submitted a brief that, while not arguing against defendant, informed the court she had found no arguable issues to assert on defendant's behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file his own written argument, but he did not submit a supplemental brief. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
In 1993, defendant was charged with murder in count one of the information. It was also alleged that in the commission of the murder, he personally used a firearm. In his 1994 trial, the court instructed the jury on first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. During argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to return a guilty verdict for the crime of second degree murder. The jury convicted him of second degree murder, and found it to be true that defendant personally used a firearm when he committed the murder. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
Defendant's request for this court to take judicial notice of pages 709-899 of the reporter's transcript from his criminal prosecution, and of the unpublished appellate opinion that affirmed his conviction is granted.
The unpublished appellate opinion affirming his conviction (case No. G016386) was filed on February 2, 1996. The facts in the opinion state the victim was the mother of defendant's young child, and discusses evidence of previous altercations between defendant and the victim.
Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) 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." (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).)
The Legislature also added section 1170.95 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 2019), which provides a procedure for defendants "convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory." Pursuant to Penal Code, section 1170.95, defendant filed a petition for resentencing in the superior court on March 22, 2019. His petition states in relevant part: "At trial, I was convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine."
On April 3, 2019, without appearances of the parties, the trial court reviewed defendant's petition and denied the petition. The minute order states: "The petition does not set forth a prima face [sic] case for relief under the statute. A review of the court records indicates defendant is not eligible for relief under the statute because the defendant does not stand convicted of murder or defendant's conviction(s) is not based on felony-murder or on a natural and probable consequences theory of vicarious liability for aiders and abettors."
We have examined the entire record and found no arguable issue. Defendant does not fall within the ambit of the statute because his prosecution was based not on a felony-murder rule or a natural and probable consequences theory, but upon his personally pulling the trigger. There is no relief available under Penal Code, section 1170.95 for someone who personally commits murder.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
MOORE, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: IKOLA, J. DUNNING, J.
Retired Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------