Opinion
E073266
12-04-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROY GENE SPRINGER, Defendant and Appellant.
Siri Shetty, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF1302409) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant, Roy Gene Springer, filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95, which the court denied. After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant's petition. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
By order dated October 8, 2019, we took judicial notice of the opinion in case No. E061168, defendant's appeal of his original judgment. We derive our factual recitation from that opinion. --------
On May 4, 2013, two people saw defendant punching the victim in the head, knocking him down to the ground, and causing his head to slam onto the concrete. While the victim was lying on the ground, defendant kicked him in the head approximately three times, took off his shirt, threw the shirt to the ground, and did what appeared to be a victory dance.
As a result of the attack, the victim suffered a number of impact injuries to his face and head, including a large fracture that went from the left parietal bone, across the top of the skull, to the right side of the frontal bone on the right part of his skull. This caused injury to his brain tissue, swelling in and around the brain, and increased pressure in the head. The victim was unconscious at the scene of the attack. When he woke in the hospital, he told the police that no one had assaulted him. However, he later slipped into a coma due to the bleeding and pressure in his head, was declared brain dead, and removed from life support.
As pertinent to the issues in the petition below, the People charged defendant by felony information with premeditated murder. (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1.) The People additionally alleged defendant had committed the murder with the intention of inflicting great bodily injury on the victim and causing him to become comatose. (§ 12022.7, subd. (b).) The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and found true the great bodily injury enhancement allegation. On May 2, 2014, the court sentenced defendant to 15 years of imprisonment.
On May 20, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 contending he had been convicted of murder pursuant to the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The People filed opposition, maintaining section 1170.95 is unconstitutional and that defendant was ineligible for relief regardless because he was the "actual killer."
At the hearing on the petition, the People noted that "defendant in this case was the actual killer. He beat the victim to death." The court inquired whether there was a "[s]ingle participant?" The People responded, "Yes, your Honor." Defense counsel acknowledged the facts were as stated by the People. The court denied the petition.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P.J. We concur: SLOUGH
J. MENETREZ
J.