Opinion
D078265
08-31-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YUSSEF YIRISH TAFICH, Defendant and Appellant.
Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Raglan, Eric A. Swanson, and James H. Flaherty, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. FWV1102700 Shahla Sabet, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Raglan, Eric A. Swanson, and James H. Flaherty, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, J.
In 2011, Yuseff Yirish Tafich and a number of others were charged with murder and kidnapping. While others went to trial, Tafich entered into a negotiated settlement. In 2013, Tafich pleaded no contest to kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a)) and voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)). Tafich also admitted that he and the codefendants inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Tafich was sentenced to a determinate term of 15 years eight months in prison.
In 2020, Tafich through retained counsel, filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court received briefs and ultimately denied the petition without evidentiary hearing on the grounds section 1170.95 and Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) (Senate Bill 1437) do not apply to convictions based on guilty pleas to voluntary manslaughter.
Tafich appeals contending that section 1170.95, which applies to murder convictions, should also apply where persons are charged with murder but plead guilty or no contest to manslaughter. Tafich recognizes all of the published opinions of the Courts of Appeal have rejected his arguments. He contends those cases were wrongly decided and that denying him access to a remedy designed for murder cases would violate principles of equal protection. This court has previously addressed the arguments raised here and rejected them. We will again hold section 1170.95 resentencing is not available to persons who plead to voluntary manslaughter. We will affirm the trial court's order.
DISCUSSION
Tafich did not go to trial with the codefendants. Instead, he negotiated a plea agreement in which he avoided any liability for murder and accepted a plea to voluntary manslaughter. As such, Tafich was not subjected to liability for murder under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, the limitations on murder liability that are the basic goals of Senate Bill 1437.
Senate Bill 1437 was enacted 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, was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.' ” (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842.)
Tafich contends Senate Bill 1437 is ambiguous and should be read to allow those who, without going to trial, pleaded to manslaughter to avoid murder liability the opportunity to be resentenced. To do otherwise, according to Tafich, would deny him equal protection. As Tafich acknowledges, this court, and other courts of appeal have rejected both of his arguments. He contends all of the opinions were wrongly decided. We disagree.
Among the opinions of the Courts of Appeal rejecting the same contentions are: People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884, 886-889; People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985, 991-997 (Flores); People v. Turner (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 428, 431-441 (Turner); People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 916-921; and People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194.
In Turner, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th 428, this court conducted a lengthy and detailed analysis and rejected the same arguments as are made here. We also conducted a lengthy and detailed analysis of the arguments and rejected them in Flores, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at pp. 991-997.
We continue to believe our rejections of the arguments presented here represent the proper analysis of the issues. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in our opinions in Turner and Flores, we again reject the defense arguments and hold the persons who, without a trial, plead to voluntary manslaughter are not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court correctly denied Tafich's petition.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Tafich's petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., GUERRERO, J.