People v. Belfield CA1/3 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Filed 4/5/21 P. v. Belfield CA1/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and
    Respondent,                                                  A161034
    v.                                                           (Contra Costa County
    TONY BELFIELD,                                               Super. Ct. No. 51505346)
    Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Tony Belfield appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing under
    Penal Code section 1170.95 and Senate Bill 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §4
    (SB 1437)). His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our
    independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
    We have reviewed the record and conclude there are no issues requiring
    further review. We affirm.
    On November 27, 2019, Belfield filed a petition for resentencing under
    SB 1437 and Penal Code section 1170.95, seeking to set aside his conviction
    for second degree murder. On the form petition, he alleged by checking the
    box for paragraph 2(a) that “[a]t trial I was convicted of 1st or 2nd degree
    1
    murder pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable
    consequences doctrine.”
    Paragraph 5 of the form petition provides several boxes for the
    petitioner to allege, if applicable, that he or she was convicted of first degree
    felony murder and could no longer be convicted because of the changes to
    Penal Code section 189 effective 2019 because (1) the petitioner was not the
    actual killer; (2) the petitioner did not act with intent to kill; (3) the
    petitioner was not a major participant or did not act with reckless
    indifference to human life; and (4) the victim was not, or the petitioner did
    not know the victim to be, a peace officer in the performance of his or her
    duties. Belfield did not check any of those boxes.
    Paragraph 6 of the form petition allows a petitioner to allege he or she
    was convicted of second degree murder under the natural and probable
    consequences doctrine or the second degree felony murder doctrine and could
    not now be convicted of murder because of the 2019 changes to Penal Code
    section 188. Belfield left that box unchecked as well.
    In opposition to the petition, the prosecutor argued Belfield was
    ineligible for relief under SB 1437 because he was the actual killer and acted
    with express or implied malice. The prosecutor asked the court to take
    judicial notice of Belfield’s record of conviction.
    Belfield responded that his petition established a prima facie case for
    relief entitling him to an evidentiary hearing. He objected to the prosecutor’s
    request for judicial notice of and references to the underlying record, arguing
    it could not be considered in assessing whether he made a prima facie
    showing of eligibility for relief.
    2
    The court took judicial notice of the record of conviction and our two
    unpublished opinions in his case.1 It found the petition was facially deficient;
    that Belfield failed as a matter of law to show he was convicted of felony
    murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory; and
    that, as the actual killer, he failed to make a prima facie showing he could no
    longer be convicted of first or second degree murder due to the changes to
    sections 188 and 189. The court therefore denied the petition.
    DISCUSSION
    Belfield’s counsel has represented that he advised Belfield of his right
    to file a Wende brief and to submit supplemental written argument on his
    own behalf. Belfield has also been advised of his right to request that counsel
    be relieved. He has not done so. Our review of the record reveals no issue
    that warrants further briefing.
    DISPOSITION
    The order of the trial court is affirmed.
    1In People v. Belfield (Nov. 29, 2018, A149964) [non-pub. opinion], we
    affirmed his conviction for second degree murder. In People v. Belfield (June
    19, 2020, A158180) [non-pub. opinion], we remanded for resentencing
    pursuant to amendments to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a).
    3
    _________________________
    Wiseman, J.*
    WE CONCUR:
    _________________________
    Petrou, Acting P.J.
    _________________________
    Jackson, J.
    *Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate
    District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
    California Constitution.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A161034

Filed Date: 4/5/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/5/2021