People v. Lucas CA4/1

Filed 4/23/25 P. v. Lucas CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083279

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD242421)

DAMONTE AKIDA LUCAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Albert T. Harutunian, III, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Gene D. Vorobyov, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Michael D. Butera, and Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Damonte Akida Lucas appeals from an order denying at the prima facie stage his petition for resentencing under what is now Penal Code section 1172.6. The People concede error. Resolving this matter by

memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we accept the People’s concession and reverse and remand with instructions. I. In 2014, Lucas pled guilty to attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187(a); count 1) and assault with a firearm (§ 245(b); count 4). In his plea, Lucas admitted (1) he personally discharged a firearm in the commission of the attempted murder (§ 12022.53(c)) and (2) both offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22(b)(1)). The court sentenced Lucas to a total prison term of 31 years. A codefendant pled guilty to the same charges as Lucas. Effective January 2019, the Legislature amended the law to eliminate liability for murder based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine or theories of imputed malice predicated solely on one’s participation in a crime. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.) Section 1172.6 provides a procedure for defendants convicted under the now-invalid theories to seek resentencing. The Legislature later clarified, as relevant here, this relief extends to defendants convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (People v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46, 55.) In 2023, Lucas petitioned the court to resentence him under what is now section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition for failure to state a prima facie case for relief. II. Lucas contends the trial court erred when it denied his petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage because his plea does not eliminate the