People v. Verrett CA3

Filed 9/9/25 P. v. Verrett CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098698

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 2018-006292) v. OPINION ON TRANSFER DAMIEN VERRETT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Damien Verrett appeals from the denial of his resentencing petition brought pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6. Defendant argues the trial court improperly relied on the preliminary hearing transcript and a firearm enhancement to find him ineligible for resentencing. In our prior unpublished opinion (People v. Verrett (May 30, 2024, C098698) [nonpub. opn.]), we agreed with defendant that the trial court erred in relying on the preliminary hearing transcript, reversed the order denying his

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Defendant’s petition references section 1170.95, the prior version of the statute. But at the time defendant filed the petition, the Legislature had already renumbered former section 1170.95 as section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We cite to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

1

petition, and remanded for the trial court to issue an order to show cause and conduct further proceedings under section 1172.6. The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate our opinion and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549 (Patton). Having done so, we now conclude that the record of conviction establishes defendant is ineligible for relief and thus affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition. BACKGROUND In 2018, an information charged defendant with attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)), being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and being a prohibited person in possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). As to the attempted murder, the information alleged defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). As to the assault, the information alleged defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). At the preliminary hearing, T.S.2 testified that on May 14, 2018, she and the victim went to an apartment to check on the victim’s son. According to the witness, the victim and defendant were “having words towards each other” at the apartment. Shortly after this exchange, defendant shot the victim multiple times. A surveillance video of the shooting was played at the preliminary hearing, and T.S. identified the shooter in the video as defendant. Defendant pled no contest to attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) with no willful, deliberate, and premeditated allegation, and admitted to personally using a