People v. Ratchford CA2/4

Filed 12/3/24 P. v. Ratchford CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B329082

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A912598 v.

JEFFREY RATCHFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy N. Carter, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Elizabeth K. Horowtiz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

In 1986, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Jeffrey Ratchford of robbery and first degree murder. In 2019, Ratchford filed a petition for recall and resentencing under what is now Penal Code section 1172.6.2 The trial court denied Ratchford relief as a matter of law, then made the alternative finding that, if Ratchford had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, he would have been entitled to relief because he was not a major participant in the murder. Ratchford appealed, and a different panel of this court reversed the trial court’s denial of his petition. (People v. Ratchford (Oct. 6, 2021, B305307) [nonpub. opn.].)3 We concluded the trial court erred in denying relief as a matter of law, and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. (Ibid.) We noted the proper inquiry at the evidentiary hearing on remand should be whether Ratchford was a major participant in the robbery (not the murder) who acted with reckless indifference to human life. (Ibid.) On remand, after following this court’s instructions, the

1 Resolution by memorandum opinion is appropriate because we remand for a new evidentiary hearing without resolving novel issues. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. For clarity, we refer to the current section number. 3 We take judicial notice of our opinion in case number B305307. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) We rely on it to explain the procedural background that gave rise to the current appeal. (See § 1172.6, subd. (d)(3).)