People v. Jefferson CA2/5 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/1/23 P. v. Jefferson CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B319884
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA085639)
v.
OMAR MALIK JEFFERSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Kelvin Filer, Judge. Affirmed.
Randy S. Kravis, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________
In 2006, defendant was the driver in a gang-related drive-
by shooting. He and his two codefendants murdered one person
and attempted to murder two others. In 2008, all three were
convicted of first-degree murder (based on intent to kill) and two
counts of premeditated attempted murder. Defendant was
sentenced to prison for 77 years to life. In 2009, his conviction
was affirmed on appeal. (People v. Jefferson (Dec. 11 2009,
B208908) [nonpub. opn.].)
In 2018, Senate Bill No. 1437 invalidated the natural and
probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder, and
narrowed liability for felony murder. (Pen. Code, § 189,
subd. (e).)1 It also enacted section 1170.95 (now 1172.6), which
provides means by which a defendant convicted of murder under
prior law could seek resentencing under the new version of the
law.
In 2019, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing
under section 1170.95. The trial court summarily denied the
petition. In 2021, we affirmed the denial, on the basis that
defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. (People v.
Jefferson (June 2, 2021, B304681) [nonpub. opn.] (1170.95
Appeal).) Specifically, we observed that defendant’s jury was not
instructed on natural and probable consequences or felony
murder. (Id. at pp. 2, 5-6.)
In February 2022, defendant filed a second petition. The
trial court summarily denied the petition, concluding that – even
though intervening changes expanded the scope of relief to
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
attempted murder – defendant remained ineligible as a matter of
law. Defendant filed the present appeal.
Defendant’s counsel filed a brief indicating he could find no
arguable issues to raise on appeal and requesting this court to
(1) inform defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief; and
(2) exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of
the record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232.)
After receiving notice of the filing of counsel’s brief,
defendant personally filed a brief raising a single issue. He relies
on a recent amendment to section 1172.6, which extends relief to
any case in which “malice is imputed to a person based solely on
that person’s participation in a crime.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(1).)
Defendant argues that he is eligible for relief because he “was
indeed convicted of murder with malice.” Defendant
misconstrues the statutory language; it provides for relief only in
cases of imputed malice. Here, no malice was imputed to
defendant; the jury found defendant personally acted with
malice.
We have independently reviewed the record and found no
error.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.
RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MOOR, J. KIM, J.