People v. Outley CA6

Filed 1/13/25 P. v. Outley CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051173 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 146545)

v.

CHRISTOPHER LEE OUTLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Christopher Lee Outley appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 For the reasons stated below, we affirm the order. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On March 18, 1992, a jury convicted Outley of first degree murder (§ 187; count 1) and conspiracy to commit a crime (former § 182.1; count 2.) The jury also found true a special circumstance as to count one that Outley intentionally killed the victim while lying in wait (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), as well as an enhancement that in the commission of both offenses, Outley personally used a firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a); 1203.06.) The trial court sentenced Outley to a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole, plus a two-year term for the firearm enhancements. In 1994, a different panel of this

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Because the facts of the underlying matter are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal, we do not recount them here.

court affirmed Outley’s convictions on appeal. (People v. Outley, et al. (May 11, 1994, H009816) [nonpub. opn.] ) On August 9, 2022, Outley filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6.3 On June 21, 2023, the trial court denied Outley’s petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause. In a written order, the trial court held that Outley was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law because the jury found true the lying-in-wait special circumstance as to count one, which necessarily required a finding by the jury that Outley acted with intent to kill. The trial court further noted that Outley’s conviction for conspiracy to commit a crime, namely, first degree murder, in count two also required the jury to find that Outley had the specific intent to kill. Finally, the court found that because Outley was found by the jury to have personally used a firearm during the commission of the murder and was the sole shooter, he was the actual killer, thus making him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. On June 21, 2023, Outley filed a timely notice of appeal. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues, and requested that the court conduct an independent review of the record on appeal. This court treated the brief as filed under Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, and People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano).4 On June 3,