DISCUSSION

Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437) eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder liability and limited the scope of the felony- murder rule. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis).)

3 D’Milian pleaded no contest to the murder of the newborn and the attempted murders of its mother’s fiancé and relative. 4 Thereafter, appellant filed two petitions for writ of mandate in this court (B346559, B346811), and one in the Supreme Court, which was then transferred to this court (B343518). Those petitions were all denied.

3 The felony-murder rule was amended to provide that “[a] participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: [¶] (1) The person was the actual killer. [¶] (2) The person was not the actual killer, but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. [¶] (3) The person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 190.2.” (§ 189, subd. (e).) Senate Bill 1437 also amended section 188 to require that, when the felony- murder rule does not apply, a principal in the crime of murder “shall act with malice aforethought” and “[m]alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3); see People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 842–843, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 836.) Senate Bill 1437 authorizes the filing of a petition “ ‘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.’ ” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 967.) Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2021– 2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.6 to expand its coverage to individuals convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine and manslaughter. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a); People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 544.) Upon receiving a properly pleaded petition for resentencing

4 under section 1172.6, the trial court is to appoint counsel to the petitioner, if requested. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 966.) The court then conducts a prima facie review to determine eligibility for relief and issues an order to show cause if a prima facie showing is made. (Id. at p. 971.) The court may consider the record of conviction to determine whether the petitioner made the requisite prima facie showing. (Id. at pp. 971–972.) Under Delgadillo, we must evaluate appellant’s specific arguments, but are not required to undertake an independent review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, 231– 232.) The only issue appellant raised relates to the 1966 repeal of former article VI, section 20, of the California Constitution, which provided that “[t]he style of all process shall be, ‘The People of the State of California’; and all prosecutions shall be conducted in the name and by the authority of the same.” Since that repeal, a substantially similar provision has been housed in the Government Code. (See Gov. Code, § 100, subd. (b) [“The style of all process shall be ‘The People of the State of California,’ and all prosecutions shall be conducted in their name and by their authority”].) Appellant argues that the Legislature’s addition of this provision to the Government Code was “corrupt[]” as it “nullified Californians’ majority votes at the California General election [in] 1966.” Therefore, he argues, his prosecution in the name of the People of the State of California and his resulting conviction are invalid. This argument falls outside the scope of a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, and we decline to address it further. Appellant has not made any arguments to challenge the denial of his motion for minute orders and case files.

5

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. SIGGINS, J.*

* Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three.

6