People v. Rhynes

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOBBIE DALE RHYNES, Defendant and Appellant.

F085253

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

January 22, 2024

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County No BF161828A Colette M. Humphrey, Judge.

Andrea Keith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen and Ismah Ahmad, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT ^[*]

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, appellant Bobbie Dale Rhynes was charged with the first degree murder of Carl Everett Woolwine (Pen Code,^[1] § 187, subd. (a), count 1). The information further alleged that Rhynes personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Thomas Ray Ertz and Joan Allaine Noble were charged with being accessories after the fact (§ 32, counts 2 &3).

In 2017, following a hung trial, Rhynes plead no contest to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and admitted to using a firearm in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced Rhynes to an aggregate term of 14 years in state prison.

In 2022, Rhynes filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now renumbered as section 1172.6). The trial court appointed counsel to represent Rhynes and the prosecutor filed an opposition to Rhynes's petition. Following argument by the parties, the trial court denied Rhynes's petition at the prima facie stage, finding him ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law.

On appeal, Rhynes contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition at the prima facie stage. We conclude that the record of conviction shows, without factfinding involving the weighing of evidence of exercise of discretion, that Rhynes was convicted as the actual killer. He is therefore ineligible for resentencing relief as a matter of law. We therefore affirm.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 9, 2017, pursuant to an amended information, the Kern County District Attorney charged Rhynes with the murder of Carl Everett Woolwine (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1) and voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a); count 2). The information further alleged that Rhynes had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which caused great bodily injury or death during the commission of count 1 (§ 12022.53 subd. (d)), and that Rhynes had personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) in the commission of count 2.

That same day, Rhynes pled no contest to voluntary manslaughter (count 2) and admitted the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) firearm use enhancement. In view of his plea, count 1 was dismissed.

On June 22, 2017, the trial court sentenced Rhynes to the upper term of 11 years for voluntary manslaughter, and a term of three years for the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) firearm enhancement.

On June 6, 2022, Rhynes filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95. The prosecutor filed an opposition to the petition and requested summary denial, arguing that Rhynes was tried and convicted as the actual killer.

On October 12, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Rhynes's petition. Trial counsel submitted on the petition filed. The trial court denied the petition, explaining that because Rhynes had admitted to being the actual killer, he was unable to make a prima facie showing for relief under section 1172.6.^[2]

A timely notice of appeal followed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

At his change of plea hearing, Rhynes stipulated to the preliminary hearing transcript as the factual basis for his plea. The following statement of facts is derived from the preliminary hearing transcript:

Rhynes, Ertz, Noble, Nicholas Cates, and Woolwine, worked together at the Alta Sierra Ski Resort. Ertz and Noble were in a dating relationship.

On the afternoon of October 10, 2015, Ertz, Cates, Rhynes, and Woolwine drove to a hunting trail. Cates dropped Ertz and Rhynes off, and he and Woolwine went to a higher area of the sky resort and parked to observe the area.

During the excursion, Woolwine remarked to Cates "that he wanted to go back to the office and watch Noble work." Cates thought that the comment was strange so he went down the mountain to tell Noble what Woolwine had said. Woolwine subsequently returned to a maintenance shop at the resort.

At some point, Cates picked up Rhynes and Ertz and brought them back to the office where Noble was working. Cates told Rhynes and Ertz about Woolwine's comment. Rhynes appeared upset. He suggested, "let's go bury [Woolwine]." Rhynes instructed Cates to bring Woolwine back to the office area, and Cates complied.

When Cates returned, Woolwine asked Cates if they saw anything to shoot while they were hunting. Rhynes commented that they had not seen any bucks, but "he had his eye on something."

Eventually, when some vehicles in the parking lot nearby left, Rhynes told Cates "let's go." Cates began to feel sick. He did not want to go with the group because "he knew what they were going to do."

Cates told Rhynes that he was not feeling well and that he needed to use the restroom. Rhynes and Ertz drove off with Woolwine while Cates and Noble remained at the office.

When they arrived at the maintenance shop building, Ertz confronted Woolwine about the comment Woolwine made about Noble. Ertz told sheriff's deputies that as he and Woolwine were talking, Rhynes walked up to Woolwine and shot him in the head with a nine-millimeter pistol. Ertz went inside the nearby office where Cates and Noble were at, and he began to vomit.

Cates, who had heard the gunshot, collected his belongings and began to walk down the road, away from the resort. Before Cates left, Rhynes approached him and told him to "calm down, that it was no big deal."

Ertz got into his truck and followed Cates. When Ertz caught up to Cates, he assured Cates that he was not going to harm him and that he did not have a handgun. Ertz told Cates that he was talking to Woolwine when Rhynes shot Woolwine. After further discussion, Ertz and Cates drove back to the ski resort together to confront Rhynes about what had happened.

When Ertz and Cates got back to the office, Cates saw Rhynes "digging a hole with a backhoe." Cates asked Rhynes why he did not simply fire Woolwine. Rhynes responded that "death didn't bother him and he didn't have a problem going to prison."

After Rhynes finished digging the hole, he asked Noble to help him place Woolwine's body inside. Noble complied. Afterwards, Rhynes and Noble moved Woolwine's van down the mountain "to get rid of it."

Cates was the only one to contact the police. On October 12, 2015, several deputies from the Kern County Sheriff's Department reported to the Shirley Mountain ski resort area around 11:00 a.m. to secure the area. Law enforcement located a spent nine-millimeter shell casing at the bottom of a trench area. Deputies also found a blood trail on the north side of the trench.

Woolwine's body was found buried at the bottom of the trench. His van was located on Highway 155, approximately three miles away from where the body was found.

An autopsy revealed that Woolwine had suffered a single, fatal gunshot wound between his left eye and nose and an exit wound on the backside of his head. Rhynes admitted shooting Woolwine, but claimed that it was an accident. According to Rhynes, he pointed the gun approximately six to eight inches above Woolwine's head in an attempt to scare him.

ANALYSIS

I Rhynes is Ineligible for Resentencing Relief as a Matter of Law

Rhynes claims that the trial court erred by denying his petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage. We disagree.

A. Section 1172.6

"Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) amended the felony-murder rule by adding section 189, subdivision (e). [Citation.] It provides that a participant in the qualifying felony is liable for felony murder only if the person: (1) was the actual killer; (2) was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill, acted as a direct aider and abettor; or (3) was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. [Citation.] The Legislature also amended the natural and probable consequences doctrine by adding subdivision (a)(3) to section 188, which states that '[m]alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.'" (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45, 50-51; People v. Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 707-708.)

"Senate Bill 1437 also created a special procedural mechanism for those convicted under the former law to seek retroactive relief under the law as amended," initially codified in former section 1170.95. (People v. Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708.) The initial version of former section 1170.95 permitted "a person with an existing conviction for felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the sentencing court to have the murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts if he or she could not have been convicted of murder as a result of the other legislative changes implemented by Senate Bill 1437." (People v. Flores (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 985, 992.)

Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill No. 775 (2020-2021 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 775) made substantive amendments to former section 1170.95 that were consistent with our Supreme Court's decision in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 972 (Lewis), and also" '[c]larifie[d] that persons who were convicted of...