Filed 10/14/22 P. v. Pitchford CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ---- THE PEOPLE, C095231 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. NCR58857) v. WAYLON DOUGLAS PITCHFORD, Defendant and Appellant. Nearly 20 years ago, defendant Waylon Douglas Pitchford was convicted of second degree murder after defendant’s accomplice drove his car into a man at defendant’s direction. The prosecution’s theory of murder was based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Under that doctrine, a person is guilty not only of the offense he or she directly aided and abetted, but also of any other offense that was a natural and probable consequence of the crime aided and abetted . Effective January 1, 2019, however, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) barred further convictions for second degree murder under this doctrine (Stats 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 1-3). It also, with 1 Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (former § 1170.95),2 established a procedure for convicted murderers who could not now be convicted under the law as amended to retroactively seek relief. In this appeal, defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition to vacate his murder conviction under section 1172.6. The trial court found defendant ineligible for relief because it concluded the record showed he remained liable for second degree murder under a theory other than the natural and probable consequences doctrine— namely, the theory of aiding and abetting a murder with implied malice. It reasoned that defendant had implied malice because, among other things, defendant told his accomplice to drive his car into the victim, attempted to dislodge the victim’s grip when the victim grabbed on to the car’s hood, pulled the emergency brake in an effort to eject the victim, and told his accomplice to hit the brakes, which, after his accomplice complied, resulted in the victim suffering a fatal injury. Challenging the trial court’s finding, defendant offers three arguments. First, he contends the trial court might have failed to review the trial transcript and might have relied on inappropriate sources for factual background. Second, he asserts aiding and abetting a murder with implied malice is not a valid theory of second degree murder. Third, after asking us to apply an independent standard of review, he contends the evidence in the record does not support the trial court’s finding that he aided and abetted the murder. Finding no merit to these arguments, we affirm. 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered as section 1172.6, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We will refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion. 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals