Filed 9/15/22 P. v. Oryall CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D078561 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. CRN8537) MICHAEL ORYALL, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Harry M. Elias, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Nalls and Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Michael Dolida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Michael Oryall sought resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95).2 The trial court denied the petition, finding that Oryall was an aider and abettor who acted with intent to kill, and separately that Oryall was a major participant in the underlying crime who acted with a reckless indifference to human life. The court declined to consider Oryall’s youth at the time of the crime, explaining those considerations had been made when he was charged, and youthfulness could be reconsidered at his youthful offender parole hearing. Oryall contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s findings. He asks us to review the denial of his petition de novo because there was no live testimony, and he alternatively contends there was not substantial evidence to support the court’s factual conclusions. He also argues the court erred in its analysis of whether he acted with a reckless indifference to human life because the court did not consider his youth at the time of the crime. We conclude the proper standard of review is substantial evidence, and we find that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Oryall acted as an aider or abettor with intent to kill, and we affirm the court’s ruling on that basis. We do not reach the issue of whether there is substantial evidence to support the theory that Oryall was a major participant who acted with reckless indifference because the court reasonably denied the petition on the alternative ground. For this reason, we likewise 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Assembly Bill No. 200 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10) renumbered section 1170.95 to 1172.6, effective June 30, 2022. 2 make no determination as to the impact of the court’s failure to consider Oryall’s youth as it assessed whether Oryall acted with reckless indifference to human life. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL FACTS In September 1983, Oryall pled guilty to second degree murder (§ 187) and admitted to being armed with a firearm in the commission or attempted commission of a felony (§ 12022, subd. (a)), specifically admitting he “committ[ed] a felony resulting in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals