This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: People v. Berry-Vierwinden

Ruling by

Martin N. Buchanan

Lower Court

Riverside County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

John D. Molloy

Defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code Section 1172.6 was denied because a direct aider and abettor could not be convicted of lying-in-wait murder on an imputed malice theory.





Court

California Courts of Appeal 4DCA/1

Cite as

2023 DJDAR 12063

Published

Dec. 27, 2023

Filing Date

Dec. 26, 2023

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Affirmed

Case Fully Briefed

Nov. 6, 2023


 

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RYAN BERRY-VIERWINDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 

No. D081861

(Super. Ct. No. RIF121073)

California Court of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District

Division One

Filed December 26, 2023

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

 

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

 

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 6, 2023 be modified as follows:

On page 20, new footnote 8 is inserted at the bottom of the page and reads as follows:

 

In a petition for rehearing, Berry-Vierwinden argues that our holding conflicts with the Supreme Court's decisions in Strong and Curiel. We disagree. In both of those cases, the petitioner's jury was instructed on a theory of murder liability that was legally valid at the time of trial but was subsequently narrowed or eliminated by Senate Bill 

No. 1437. In Strong, the theory was felony murder, which "Senate Bill 1437 significantly limited" by making it inapplicable to defendants who were neither the actual killer nor acted with intent to kill---unless they were a " 'major participant' " in the underlying felony and acted with " 'reckless indifference to human life.' " (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 707, 708 [citing §189, subd. (e)(3)].) As the Supreme Court noted, "[o]nly after the Legislature amended section 189 would the defendant have had an argument for ineligibility for murder." (Id. at pp. 711-712.) In Curiel, the theory was "aiding and abetting based on the doctrine of natural and probable consequences" (Curiel, supra, 2023 Cal. LEXIS 6622, at *16), which was also a valid theory of murder liability until it was eliminated by Senate Bill No. 1437. (Gentile, supra, 10 Cal.5th at pp. 842-851.) By contrast, Berry-Vierwinden does not dispute that at the time of his trial in 2010, California law already did not allow a direct aider and abettor to be convicted of a lying-in-wait murder on an imputed malice theory.

There is no change in the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

 

McCONNELL, P. J.

 

#282040

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424