People v. Jefferson CA2/5

Filed 3/13/25 P. v. Jefferson CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B336478

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA042241) v.

ANTHONY D. JEFFERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke, II, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1994, Anthony D. Jefferson was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a) [count 1]) under a felony murder theory of liability. The jury found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery pursuant to section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17). Jefferson was additionally convicted of two counts of kidnapping (§ 209; [counts 2 & 3]), two counts of burglary (§ 459; [counts 4 & 5]), one count of residential robbery (§ 211; [count 7]), and three counts of rape (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2), 264.1, 289; [counts 8–10]). He was sentenced to life in state prison without the possibility of parole, plus nine years. In 2019, Jefferson petitioned for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6). The trial court summarily denied the petition on the basis that section 1170.95 and Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) violated the California Constitution. Jefferson appealed. On appeal, the People agreed with Jefferson that section 1170.95 and Senate Bill No. 1437 were not unconstitutional, but argued that we should affirm the trial court’s ruling because the jury found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery (§ 190.2 (a)(17)), and, in so doing, the jury determined that Jefferson was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. We reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court because we concluded that the jury’s special circumstance finding was made prior to issuance of our Supreme Court’s opinions in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016)