BAKER, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA292725-01) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Affirmed. Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2006, a jury found defendant Luis Bustamante, also known as Luis Bustamonte, (defendant) guilty of attempted premeditated murder and robbery for his role, with a fellow criminal street gang member, in stealing a gold chain from a victim and later shooting the same victim. (People v. Bustamonte (Oct. 16. 2017, B195690 [nonpub. opn.].) More recently, defendant filed a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition for resentencing in the trial court contending Senate Bill No. 1437's changes to California's murder statutes should apply to his attempted murder conviction. The trial court denied the petition.
The trial court's ruling is correct. Senate Bill No. 1437, including the petitioning procedure codified at Penal Code section 1170.95, authorizes relief only for defendants convicted of murder, not attempted murder, and that limitation does not contravene constitutional equal protection guarantees. (People v. Love (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 273, 279, review granted Dec. 16, 2020, S265445; People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 222-225; People v. Dennis (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 838, 841, review granted Jul. 29, 2020, S262184; People v. Munoz (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 738, 753-769, review granted Nov. 26, 2019, S258234; People v. Lopez (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1103-1112, review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S258175.) Additionally, there was no error in declining to appoint counsel for defendant. (See Dillon v. United States (2010) 560 U.S. 817, 828-829 [Sixth Amendment inapplicable to sentence modification proceedings]; People v. Cornelius (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 54, 58, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260410; People v. Anthony (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1102, 1156 ["[T]he retroactive relief . . . afforded by Senate Bill 1437 is not subject to Sixth Amendment analysis"]; see also In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 780 [constitutional due process guarantees demand appointment of counsel in postconviction proceedings "if a petition attacking the validity of a judgment states a prima facie case leading to issuance of an order to show cause"], italics added; People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320, 332, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493.)
The trial court's order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, J. We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
MOOR, J.