People v. Stevenson CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 9, 2024 No. F086898Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's Penal Code section 1172.6 petition for resentencing, finding that substantial evidence supported the trial court's independent determination that the defendant was guilty of second-degree murder as a direct aider and abettor with the specific intent to kill.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 after conducting an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Court finds there’s clearly sufficient evidence to conclude—as this Court does independently—the Defendant is guilty of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, as a direct aider and abettor, with specific intent to kill”

“Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm.”

Filed 9/9/24 P. v. Stevenson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086898 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CF02671870) v.

DARRYL STEVENSON, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. Conklin, Judge. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Appellate counsel for defendant Darryl Stevenson, Jr., has filed an opening brief summarizing the pertinent facts and raising no issues but asking this court to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief also includes a declaration from appellate counsel stating defendant was advised of his right to file a brief of his own with this court. By letter dated June 20, 2024, we also invited defendant to submit additional briefing. Defendant has not filed a response. This appeal comes to our court following a remand in People v. Stevenson (Dec. 29, 2022, F081656) [nonpub. opn.] (Stevenson I), requiring the trial court to conduct a new hearing on defendant’s Penal Code1 section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. Following a new evidentiary hearing on defendant’s section 1172.6 petition, the trial court again denied the petition requesting resentencing. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following our Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of this case. (Kelly, at p. 110.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. BACKGROUND On this court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of our prior opinion in Stevenson I, supra, F081656 pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivision (d) and 459. We adopt relevant portions of the procedural and factual summary from this prior opinion:

“In April 2002, defendant drove John Shepheard to a location where Shepheard immediately engaged in a fight with Burnest Williams. After watching the fight for a while, defendant retrieved a handgun from a truck and pointed it at the head of K.R. K.R. alerted Williams that defendant had a gun. The fighting stopped, and Shepheard told defendant to put the gun down as he only wanted to fist fight. After defendant returned the gun to

People v. Stevenson CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief