People v. Readus CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 28, 2025 No. D083760Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the defendant was the actual killer, thereby rendering him ineligible for resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding that the defendant was the actual killer is supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the defendant is entitled to resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1172.6.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court concluded Readus was the actual shooter and, therefore, not entitled to relief under section 1172.6.”

“An actual killer is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.”

“we conclude the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Readus was the actual shooter and ineligible for resentencing relief.”

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Readus CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083760

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD255514)

PIERRE RENEE READUS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Peter C. Deddeh, Judge. Affirmed. Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Robin H. Urbanski, and Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Pierre Renee Readus appeals the order denying his petition under

former Penal Code section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6)2 for resentencing on his conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Appointed counsel argues the court’s predicate finding that Readus was the actual killer is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Readus shot and killed Rodney Harmon on or about November 16, 2014, at the 3 Kings Hookah Lounge in San Diego, California where Harmon worked in security. The People charged Readus with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), alleging he used a firearm in Harmon’s death (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), discharging it intentionally and personally (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). This, the People alleged, was done “for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang,” in violation of section 186.22, subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(5). The People also charged Readus, a felon, with possession of a firearm, a violation of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). In 2015, Readus pled guilty to the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)), admitting that he personally used a firearm in commission of that offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). He also admitted to acting in the “heat of passion or imperfect self-defense,” and that he “personally used a firearm in the commission of” the “unlawful killing of

People v. Readus CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083760

PIERRE RENEE READUS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

IRION, J.

CASTILLO, J.

AI Brief