People v. Locke CA2/2

Filed 8/12/25 P. v. Locke CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B336724

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA042730) v.

NATHANIEL LOCKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William L. Sadler, Judge. Affirmed.

Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

Defendant and appellant Nathaniel Locke appeals from the trial court’s December 15, 2023, order denying his petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1).1 We affirm. BACKGROUND I. Conviction and Sentencing2 In 2002, a jury convicted defendant of second degree murder and found true the allegation that defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). (People v. Locke (Mar. 4, 2004, B163950) [nonpub. opn.] (Locke).) The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 40 years to life in state prison. (Ibid.) We affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (Locke, supra, B163950.) II. Petition for Recall and Resentencing On August 15, 2023, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). Defendant alleged that he was 16 years old at the time of the crime and had been incarcerated for more than 15 years. Relying on People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 (Heard), defendant argued that he was entitled to relief because he had been sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and satisfied the other criteria for resentencing. The People opposed the petition.