P. v. Dunn CA1/3 filed 8/3/26

Filed 8/3/26 P. v. Dunn CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
KEYLEN MALIK DUNN,
Defendant and Appellant.
A173077

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 05001716232)

Keylen Malik Dunn appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record under People v. Delgadillo (2023) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant himself filed a supplemental brief, which raises no arguable issue. As such, we affirm the denial of resentencing.
Factual and Procedural Background
The facts of the underlying offenses are set forth more fully in our unpublished opinion in defendant’s prior appeal. (See People v. Dunn (Mar. 15, 2021, A155981)[nonpub. opn.] (Dunn).)
Briefly, the People charged defendant with the murder of Eaen Hale (§ 187, subd. (a)) and further alleged he personally used a knife in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The People also charged defendant with a second degree robbery (§ 211) that occurred in February 2016. The trial court consolidated the charges for trial. The evidence at trial on the murder charge included the following.
Around 6:45 p.m. on July 8, 2016, Bryan Abernathy was sitting in his truck when, from his rearview mirror, he saw defendant chasing Hale. Abernathy was friends with both men and knew defendant and Hale hung out together. Abernathy watched defendant get within five feet of Hale before defendant returned to the park. Several minutes later, defendant chased Hale across the street before they went down to the ground, disappearing from Abernathy’s view. A minute or two later, defendant “ ‘popped up’ ” and ran in front of Abernathy’s truck holding what appeared to be a bloody knife. When Abernathy exited the truck, he found Hale on his stomach in a pool of blood. Hale died on the scene.
Shortly before his death, Hale called 911 and reported that defendant had popped his tires with a knife, hit him in the mouth, and would have stabbed him had he not run away. Hale said he had to get away because defendant would be returning with “ ‘a long ass knife.’ ” During the call, Hale repeatedly yelled things like “ ‘I don’t know what to do’ ” and “ ‘Oh no.’ ” The autopsy report indicated Hale died from a single stab wound to the chest. A fresh abrasion was on defendant’s left middle finger knuckleafter his arrest.
Defendant took the stand and testified about his history of mental health issues, medications for his psychiatric conditions, and his hospitalization in the psychiatric ward as a teenager. Defendant had been homeless since 2014 and admitted himself to a psychiatric ward a few weeks before Hale’s death. Though he obtained medications during that hospitalization, he ran out at least a week before Hale’s death. Defendant and Hale had been friends since he was a teenager, and he denied wanting Hale dead. He claimed that on the day that Hale died, he had lent Hale his lighter to smoke methamphetamine and Hale had burnt defendant’s handwhile offering defendant his pipe. They got into an altercation during which Hale became angry and pulled out a knife. Hale subsequently ran away,but then tripped and fell on his own knife as defendant was chasing him. Defendant did not call for help or try to help Hale but, instead, retrieved the shopping cart that contained his belongings and left the area. Defendant denied knowing why three knives were found in his shopping cart and claimed he never carried knives.
Other evidence was presented regarding defendant’s mental state. One witness described defendant’s erratic behavior in the six weeks preceding Hale’s death, and a jail psychiatrist testified that defendant had schizophrenia and was treated for psychosis in September 2016.
As relevant here, the trial court instructed the jury on the charges of second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The jury found defendantguilty of second degree murder and the February 2016 robbery. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life for the murder and imposed a two-year consecutive term for the robbery. Defendant appealed from the judgment, and we affirmed. (Dunn, supra, A155981.)
In December 2024, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under the predecessor statute to section 1172.6. On the petition form, defendant checked the boxes indicating that a complaint, information, or indictment was filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, or attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine (former § 1170.95, subd. (a)(1), now § 1172.6, subd. (a)(1)); that he had been convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter following a trial; and that he could not be convicted for murder or attempted murder because of changes made to §§ 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019 (former §1170.95, subd. (a)(3), now § 1172.6, subd. (a)(3)).
The same judge who presided over defendant’s trial held a hearing onhisresentencing petition on March 28, 2025. At the hearing, defense counsel indicated she did not want to take a position adverse to defendant but indicated she could not ascertain any legal issues to raise on his behalf. As such, she requested that the court treat defendant’s filing as a petition under section 1172.1, which allows a court under certain circumstances to resentence a defendant on its own motion, if the court did not find that defendant established a prima facie case under section 1172.6. Defense counsel attempted to make a record of what defendant’s positions were on the section 1172.6 petition, but defendant asked and was permitted to speak at that point.
After hearing from defendant, the trial court ruled he did not qualify for relief under section 1172.6 because he was not tried under any of the theories of murder that had been invalidated by that statute. Citingdefendant’s testimony that only he and Hale were present at the crime scene, as well asdefendant’s claim that Hale accidentally fell on his own knife, the court concluded he was not entitled to relief. It also declined to entertain defense counsel’s request to treat the section 1172.6 petition as a petition under section 1172.1.
After defendant asked and was permitted to speak again,the trial court maintained its ruling and denied defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Defendant appeals.
Discussion
When, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal from a denial of postconviction relief, the defendant is not entitled to independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 or Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp.226, 231–232.) If, however, the defendant files a supplemental brief or letter, the reviewing court must “evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief” and “issue a written opinion.” (Id. at p. 232.)
Defendant submitted a one-page handwritten letter in which he first asserts he was not “suppose[d] to be seen by [his] trial court or attorney which grants automatic release by law.” He does not further elaborate, and we cannot discern the basis for his challenge. As such, this assertion fails to establish anentitlement to relief.
Defendant’s only other assertion is that the trial court did not use “proper law language” and failed to explicitly state it was denying his petition for resentencing relief under section 1172.6. This argument finds no support in the record. The trial court clearly announcedat the beginning of the March 28, 2025 hearing that it was considering defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The courtthereafter explainedit was “going to deny [defendant’s] request” because the jury in defendant’s trial was not instructed on any theories of liability invalidated by section 1172.6.
Finally, to the extent defendant argues the court was required to use specific words in order for its ruling to be effective, the contentionis without merit. Courts have regularly denied claims of error based on a trial court’s failure to recite particular magic words, so long as the court’s intentions and the bases of its rulings are clear. (See People v. Rodriguez (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 289, 299; see alsoPeople v. Hampton (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1092, 1104;People v. Garrett (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 795, 801.) Here, the record discloses the court was clear in denying defendant’s resentencing petition and in expressing the basis for that ruling.
Disposition
The trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
_________________________
Fujisaki, Acting P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Petrou, J.

_________________________
Rodríguez, J.

People v. Dunn(A173077)