People v. Terrell CA2/5

Filed 10/7/24 P. v. Terrell CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B332851

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. BA379758-01)

KEISHON TERRELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Richman, Judge. Affirmed. Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

A trial jury in 2013 convicted defendant and appellant Keishon Anthony Terrell (defendant) of the willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of victim Marcus Flagg. The jury also found true allegations that the crime was gang-related (Pen. Code,1 § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that a principal in the crime discharged a handgun causing great bodily injury.2 Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for the attempted murder plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life in prison for the firearm enhancement. Defendant filed a section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95) petition for resentencing in January 2022. The petition argued defendant was eligible for resentencing because he was convicted of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (See generally People v. Lovejoy (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 860, 865; People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548 [“[Former s]ection 1170.95 applies by its terms only to attempted murders based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine”].) The prosecution opposed defendant’s petition, contending his jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine and he was instead convicted on a direct aiding and abetting theory of liability. Appointed counsel for defendant filed a response to the opposition arguing there was insufficient evidence to support finding defendant guilty of attempted murder on a direct aiding and abetting theory.