Filed 10/26/20 P. v. Morhy CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D077437 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF149060) AARON MATTHEW MORHY, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Ronald L. Taylor, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Riverside Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.). Affirmed.

Melissa Hill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2010, Aaron Matthew Morhy and two codefendants were tried by a jury. Morhy was convicted of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). Morhy was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Morhy appealed his conviction and this court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion filed November 8, 2012. (People v. Veliz, et. al. (Nov. 8, 2012, D059524) [nonpub. opn.].)

In January 2019, Morhy filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The petition alleged he had been convicted on a natural and probable consequences theory or felony murder.

The court appointed counsel and ordered briefing. Eventually the court held a hearing on the petition. At the hearing, based on the prior opinion of this court, it was determined that Morhy was tried as a direct aider and abettor and an active participant in the killing of the victim (Morhy struck the victim with a large rock multiple times while the codefendants stabbed him). The court denied the petition.

Morhy filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Morhy the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the underlying offense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. (People v. Veliz, et. al., supra, D059524.) We will not repeat them here.

DISCUSSION As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel

has identified an unbriefed issue regarding whether Morhy could have been tried on a natural and probable consequences theory.

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders and considered counsel’s “unbriefed issue.” Our search of the record has not revealed any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Morhy on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BENKE, J.