People v. Huston CA3

Filed 12/26/27 P. v. Huston CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100334

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F07830)

v.

SHAQUILLE HUSTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

In November 2017, defendant Shaquille Huston was convicted of first degree murder. He appeals the trial court’s denial of his third petition for resentencing under now Penal Code section 1172.6. (Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.) His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and asks that we exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal.

1

Defendant filed a supplemental brief contending he “was entitled to a Banks/Clark sufficiency review,”1 and requesting us to issue an “order to show cause and prove a reason for ineligibility for resentencing.” We review these contentions and conclude none have merit. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. Defendant’s Underlying Conviction In November 2014, defendant and three companions robbed two victims of marijuana and an amplifier. One of the victims was shot and killed. (People v. Stroupe (Feb. 24, 2021, C086068) [nonpub. opn.] (Stroupe).) In November 2017, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder with a special circumstance that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery. However, the jury found not true an allegation that defendant personally used a firearm. The jury also convicted defendant of robbery, again finding not true a personal firearm- use allegation. (Stroupe, supra, C086068.) During trial, the jury was instructed on homicide solely on a felony-murder theory. The jury instructions on the robbery-murder special circumstance included the Banks factors, but not the Clark factors. The trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder with the robbery-murder special circumstance. It also sentenced him to the lower term of two years for the robbery that was stayed. (Stroupe, supra, C086068.) On appeal, this court rejected defendant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding that (1) he