People v. Hunt CA3

Filed 3/3/25 P. v. Hunt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C100209

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR57914)

v.

MICHAEL AVERY HUNT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Michael Avery Hunt appeals from the denial of his postconviction petition seeking resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6 (statutory citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated). Counsel for defendant filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, asking this court to exercise its discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. Defendant also filed a supplemental brief in propria persona. We will affirm. I. BACKGROUND In September 1980, a jury found defendant guilty of robbery (§ 211) and first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a).) The jury found true a principal to the offense was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The jury also found a special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to life in state prison without possibility of parole.

1

Defendant appealed and, in an unpublished opinion, we modified defendant’s sentence but otherwise affirmed the conviction in People v. Hunt (Mar. 9, 1982, 3 Crim. 11199) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6). (People v. Hunt (Apr. 12, 2022, C092335) [nonpub. opn.].) The trial court issued an order to show cause, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and denied the petition. (Ibid.) We affirmed denial of defendant’s petition. (Ibid.) The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our previous decision and reconsider the case in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551). (People v. Hunt (Oct. 17, 2022, C092335) [nonpub. opn.].) We reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the matter for a new evidentiary hearing. (Ibid.) On October 18, 2022, the trial court issued an order to show cause why defendant should not be granted relief under section 1172.6. The parties filed briefs as ordered by the court. On December 18, 2023, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant’s petition. Defendant represented himself at the hearing pursuant to a motion under Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806. The trial court concluded, after reviewing the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts from defendant’s trial and all admissible evidence defendant submitted, the following findings of fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt: “On January 15, 1980, [defendant] and Michael Rhinehart robbed [J.K.], the manager of the Stop and Shop, outside the store while [J.K.] was leaving with the bag containing the bank deposits around 4:30 p.m. [¶] [J.K.] was following his daily routine in which he would leave after his shift ended around 4:30 with a bag containing the day’s cash which he would take to the bank to deposit. [¶] Rhinehart was pre-positioned by some trash bins and [defendant] was pre-positioned at a nearby phone booth. [¶] Both [defendant] and Rhinehart were carrying [a] loaded firearm. [¶] Neither Rhinehart nor [defendant] were wearing masks or otherwise attempted to disguise themselves. [¶] Almost immediately after Rhinehart first approached the victim with his gun drawn and told him by name to drop it, [defendant] came running up from a different direction, whereupon both [defendant] and Rhinehart shot the victim at very close