Opinion
G058897
02-24-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICARDO RUIZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Jean Matulis, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF106251) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Jean Matulis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is appellant Ricardo Ruiz's second appearance in our court. He won in his first, achieving a reduction of his sentence from life without parole to life with parole, but he is not as successful this time around. Indeed, his appointed attorney was unable to find any issue to argue in his behalf and we concur in that conclusion.
The matter before us now is appellant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 . In it, he requested resentencing on the basis that his conviction was based on an application of the felony murder doctrine or natural consequences doctrine, both of which have been greatly limited by the subsequent passage of Proposition 47, which added section 1170.95 and amended sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
The trial court denied appellant's petition without a hearing. This is because his conviction was not based upon either of the doctrines affected by section 1170.95. Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, murder, and discharging a firearm from a vehicle. The basis of appellant's liability was that he passed a firearm from a backseat passenger in his car to another passenger, who then fired the fatal shots.
As is obvious from that description of the facts, the prosecution involved neither the felony murder rule nor the natural consequences rule. The case was tried on a direct aiding-and-abetting theory. No instructions were given regarding either the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine and neither side argued either.
Appellant therefore cannot qualify for any relief under section 1170.95 and his appeal from the order denying his petition cannot succeed. With the aid of the briefing submitted by counsel, we considered not only the application of section 1170.95 to appellant's case but also scoured the short record for any other mistakes, which we chose to do even though this is appellant's second appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266, 268.) We have been unable to find any other issues that might be argued in appellant's behalf. Our review is limited to issues pertaining to his section 1170.95 petition, and we can find no flaw in the handling of that. We must therefore agree with appellate counsel that there is no arguable issue here.
Appellant's request that we take judicial notice of appellant's underlying conviction, People v. Ruiz (Nov. 18, 2011, G042851 [nonpub. opn.]), is granted. The judgment is affirmed.
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, J. IKOLA, J.