Opinion
B298707 B299126
04-22-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SALVADOR JAY VILLANUEVA, JR., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANGELO JACOB VASQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Salvador Jay Villanueva, Jr. Aaron Spolin for Defendant and Appellant Angelo Jacob Vasquez. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri, David E. Madeo, Charles S. Lee and Nancy Lii Ladner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA074614) APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Salvatore Sirna, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Salvador Jay Villanueva, Jr. Aaron Spolin for Defendant and Appellant Angelo Jacob Vasquez. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri, David E. Madeo, Charles S. Lee and Nancy Lii Ladner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * * * * * *
A jury found defendants and appellants Angelo Jacob Vasquez and Salvador Jay Villanueva, Jr. guilty of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder and found true personal firearm use allegations. Defendants were each sentenced to state prison for a term of 25 years to life. In 2010, this court affirmed defendants' convictions in an unpublished decision (People v. Vasquez (May 6, 2010, B205698) [nonpub. opn.]).
After the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) in 2018, defendants filed petitions requesting resentencing pursuant to newly enacted Penal Code section 1170.95 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4). The trial court summarily denied both petitions and defendants filed timely appeals. We consolidated the two appeals for purposes of argument and decision.
We affirm the trial court's orders denying both petitions with respect to defendants' convictions for attempted murder. We otherwise reverse the court's denial orders and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
In August 2006, defendants were charged, along with codefendant Christopher Murray, with two counts of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) [counts 1 & 2]), and one count of attempted murder (§ 187, subd. (a), § 664 [count 3]). A multiple murder special circumstance allegation was alleged as to counts 1 and 2 (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). As to all counts, it was alleged that defendants personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b).
The charges arose from an incident on the afternoon of April 3, 2006. (People v. Vasquez, supra, B205698.) Defendants and codefendant Murray, all of whom were armed, confronted Christopher Trevizo and two brothers, Demetries and Damon Flores, because Murray was angry that Trevizo had stolen marijuana from him several weeks earlier. (Ibid.) Murray shot and killed Trevizo and Demetries Flores and shot at but missed Damon Flores. (Ibid.) Defendants "pointed guns at each of the Flores brothers, but fired no shots." (Ibid.)
Codefendant Murray pleaded no contest to the charges. He is not a party to this appeal.
Defendants, in a joint jury trial, "were tried on the theory that they either aided and abetted the shootings, or that they aided and abetted a planned assault with a firearm, and the shootings were the natural and probable consequences of the planned offense." (People v. Vasquez, supra, B205698.)
Defendant Vasquez was found guilty of second degree murder on counts 1 and 2, and of attempted murder on count 3. Defendant Villanueva was convicted of first degree murder on count 1, second degree murder on count 2, and attempted murder on count 3. The firearm use allegations were found true as to both defendants. Defendants were each sentenced to state prison for an indeterminate term of 25 years to life.
In 2018, the Legislature passed, and the Governor approved, Senate Bill No. 1437. Penal Code section 1170.95 was enacted as part of the legislative changes effected by Senate Bill No. 1437 and became effective January 1, 2019.
Both Vasquez and Villanueva filed petitions, with the assistance of counsel, requesting resentencing as to all three counts pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.
In May 2019, the trial court summarily denied both petitions. The court explained that as to the attempted murder convictions (count 3), defendants did not qualify for relief under the statutory scheme. The court also denied the petitions as to all three counts on the additional ground that the statutory amendments effected by Senate Bill No. 1437, including Penal Code section 1170.95, were unconstitutional.
DISCUSSION
1. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Denying Relief on Count 3 (Attempted Murder)
Defendants contend the trial court erred in concluding resentencing relief is not statutorily authorized for defendants convicted of attempted murder.
We disagree. "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, 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).)" (People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723.)
Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (a) provides, in plain language, that only persons "convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory" may file a petition seeking resentencing. "When we interpret statutes, giving effect to legislative purpose is the touchstone of our mission." (People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 409.) "The text of the statute is integral to our understanding of the statute's purpose." (Ibid.) "We must take 'the language . . . as it was passed into law, and [we] must, if possible without doing violence to the language and spirit of the law, interpret it so as to harmonize and give effect to all its provisions.' " (Id. at pp. 409-410.)
Two courts have already rejected the argument that individuals convicted of attempted murder may seek relief under Penal Code section 1170.95: People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087, review granted November 13, 2019, S258175; and People v. Muñoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738, review granted November 26, 2019, S252291.
Defendants urge us to reject Lopez and Muñoz and follow decisions from the Fifth District that have concluded to the contrary: People v. Larios (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 956, review granted February 26, 2020, S259983; People v. Medrano (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1001, review granted March 11, 2020, S259948; and People v. Sanchez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 637.
We believe Lopez and Muñoz are the better reasoned and adopt their analyses. The trial court did not err in concluding that defendants were not eligible for sentencing relief as to their convictions for attempted murder (count 3).
2. The Trial Court Erred in Failing to Resolve the Petitions on the Merits as to Counts 1 and 2 (the Murder Counts)
Defendants argue the trial court erred in denying their respective petitions on the grounds the statutory amendments effected by Senate Bill No. 1437 are unconstitutional. Respondent agrees the statutory amendments were constitutional and concedes reversal and remand is appropriate as to the murder counts (counts 1 & 2).
We agree with the parties. The constitutionality of the changes effected by Senate Bill No. 1437 has been thoroughly discussed in the following decisions: People v. Lamoureux (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 241, review denied February 19, 2020, S259835; People v. Superior Court (Gooden) (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 270, review denied February 19, 2020, S259700; People v. Cruz (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 740; and People v. Solis (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 762. Other than to adopt the well-reasoned analyses of these opinions, we have nothing further to add.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's orders denying defendants' respective petitions as to the murder counts. On remand, the trial court shall conduct further proceedings on the merits of defendants' petitions with respect to counts 1 and 2. We express no opinion on the merits of defendants' claims as to their entitlement to sentencing relief.
DISPOSITION
The orders, dated May 10, 2019, denying defendants' petitions for resentencing are affirmed with respect to both defendants' convictions on count 3 for attempted murder.
The orders denying the petitions are reversed with respect to both defendants' convictions on counts 1 and 2 for murder. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to conduct further proceedings in accordance with Penal Code section 1170.95 on the merits of both defendants' resentencing petitions as to the murder counts.
GRIMES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, J.
WILEY, J.