People v. Hill CA4/3

Filed 8/22/25 P. v. Hill CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064621

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17CF3186)

PRENTIS JOHN HILL, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Scott A. Steiner, Judge. Affirmed. Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

A jury convicted defendant Prentis John Hill of second degree murder. He filed a resentencing petition under Penal Code section 1172.6, which the trial court denied after a prima facie hearing.1 On appeal, his appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief, requesting that we independently review the record for error under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We have exercised our discretion to review the record but have found no arguable issues. Thus, we affirm the court’s postjudgment order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In April 2019, the prosecution filed an information charging Hill with one count of murder. (§ 187, subdivision (a).) About three years later, a jury found him guilty of second degree murder. It also found true that he had personally used a dangerous weapon, a screwdriver, in committing the offense. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Hill was sentenced to 16 years to life in prison for the murder and the dangerous weapon enhancement. Hill appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed. Hill filed a resentencing petition under section 1172.6 in July 2023 (the petition), while the appeal of his conviction was still pending. He was later appointed counsel in connection with the petition. The trial court dismissed the petition after a prima facie hearing. It explained, “petitioner is ineligible for relief because [Senate Bill No.] 1437 had already eliminated the now-invalid theories of murder liability by the time [Hill] was tried, convicted, and sentenced. The jury instructions confirm that petitioner was not convicted under an invalid theory of imputed malice because the jury was only instructed as to first and second-degree murder with zero reference to