DISCUSSION

Senate Bill No. 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.’ ” (People v. Martinez (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723.) Section 1170.95 was created to permit defendants convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to file a

2 petition for resentencing to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).) Under Senate Bill No. 1437, the defendant must have been convicted of murder following trial or by plea in a case prosecuted on a felony murder or natural consequences theory. (People v. Martinez, supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 723.) Reyna was not convicted of murder, and his conviction did not arise from an offense where malice is an element of the crime. Thus, Reyna is not a person aggrieved by the former methods of proving malice that the Legislature has now rejected. Reyna’s arguments that the statute applies to persons convicted of manslaughter after being charged with murder or that failure to apply the statute to manslaughter convictions would violate equal protection have been rejected by the Courts of Appeal, including the following cases: (1) People v. Harris (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 557, 565-571, review granted April 21, 2021, S267529 [Fourth Appellate District, Division Two]; (2) People v. Sanchez (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 914, 916, 918-921 [Fourth Appellate District, Division Two]; (3) People v. Paige (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 194, 197-198 [First Appellate District, Division Two]; (4) People v. Turner, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at pages 435-439 [Fourth Appellate District, Division One]; (5) People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985, 992-997 [Fourth Appellate District, Division One]; and (6) People v. Cervantes (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 884, 887-888 [Second Appellate District, Division Six]. We have reviewed the cases listed above, all of which have rejected all of Reyna’s arguments. We agree with the analysis in each of the cases. In People v. Turner, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at pages 435 through 439, this court analyzed the arguments that are now presented in this appeal and rejected them. For the reasons set forth in Turner, we once again hold that a

3 person convicted by plea of voluntary manslaughter is not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.95. We further hold that denial of eligibility for relief to persons convicted of voluntary manslaughter does not violate equal protection. (People v. Harris, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 570, rev. gr.)

DISPOSITION

The order denying Reyna’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.

O’ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

GUERRERO, J.

4