People v. Wingfield CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Jul 31, 2025 No. B343500Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant is ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 as a matter of law because he was convicted as a direct aider and abettor rather than under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.
Whether the defendant's claims regarding lack of evidence of express malice and sentencing errors provide a basis for relief under section 1172.6.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record of conviction demonstrates Wingfield was not tried on a theory of natural and probable consequences, but rather as a direct aider and abettor. Accordingly, he is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.”

Filed 7/31/25 P. v. Wingfield CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B343500

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA062684-02 v.

CARNELL WINGFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph J. Burghardt, Judge. Affirmed.

Carnell Wingfield, in pro. per.; Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), we review this appeal from an order denying a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 We affirm. BACKGROUND2 On August 6, 2006, Lejoy G., his two young children, his girlfriend Adriana, his 16-year-old sister Layla, and his friend Theodore were sitting in a car getting ready to go somewhere. A car pulled up next to them. The driver later was identified as Wingfield. A man later identified as Clarence James, who was the passenger, fired five or six gunshots at Lejoy G.’s car. One of the shots hit Layla in the face. The bullet entered her left temple and exited the right side of her nose. She was hospitalized and survived. (Wingfield I.) Authorities recorded a jailhouse conversation between Wingfield and James, who were put in the same cell. In the conversation, Wingfield and James “revealed their culpability” for the shooting. (Wingfield I.) Layla also identified Wingfield in a photo lineup. (Ibid.) The People charged Wingfield and James with six counts of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated murder (counts 1 through 6) as well as shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (count 7). In count 1, the People alleged James personally and

People v. Wingfield CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B343500

CARNELL WINGFIELD,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

EDMON, P. J.

HANASONO, J.

AI Brief