People v. Richmond CA5

Filed 8/25/25 P. v. Richmond CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088572 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF170010A) v.

ELDRICK RICHMOND, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John D. Oglesby, Judge. Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Ian Whitney, Christina Simpson, and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Eldrick Richmond was convicted of murder after he killed a woman in a hotel room. In a prior opinion, we affirmed the conviction but found error relative to the

degree. (People v. Richmond (Feb. 19, 2021, F078340 [nonpub. opn.]) The People, consistent with our disposition, accepted a reduction to second degree. A little more than two years later, Richmond petitioned for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The trial court denied the petition, finding Richmond failed to “ma[k]e a prima facie showing [he was] entitled to relief[.]” We affirm. BACKGROUND The Kern County District Attorney charged Richmond with committing murder. A jury found him guilty. After an appeal, the degree was set at second. (See § 1181; People v. Richmond (Feb. 19, 2021, F078340 [nonpub. opn.].) When Richmond later petitioned for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6, the People opposed, claiming “Richmond was the actual killer.” The People added “no jury instructions were given for felony murder, natural and probable consequences, aiding and abetting, or any other form of imputed liability.” Richmond contended he “met his prima facie burden” to demonstrate eligibility for relief. He offered, however, no explanation for his conclusion. Once in court and ready for a hearing on the petition, the People moved for a continuance. The judge interjected, “I’m going to deny the petition. I was the trial judge.” Nonetheless, the matter was continued several weeks. At the continued hearing, the judge lamented, “[W]e’re going to pick a new date … for me to deny [the petition] at the prima facie stages.” The judge then stated, “[T]his was a murder trial in front of me where [Richmond] strangled the woman in his hotel room[.]” Again, the matter was continued. At the next hearing, the trial court finally ruled on the petition. It reiterated it had “previously made comments on this case,” then ruled as follows: