People v. Wright CA2/6

Filed 9/15/25 P. v. Wright CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B337572 (Super. Ct. No. GA082955) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

STEVEN LAWRENCE WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Steven Lawrence Wright appeals the order denying his Penal Code section 1172.6 petition to vacate his 2016 first degree murder conviction and to be resentenced.1 A jury found true an allegation that a principal in the commission of the offense had intentionally discharged a firearm and had caused death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (d) and (e)(1). The trial court found true one prior strike within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) Appellant was sentenced to prison for an

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

aggregate term of 75 years to life. We upheld the murder conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Wright et al. (Dec. 19, 2018, B281115) (Wright I).) Appellant’s section 1172.6 petition was denied at the prima facie stage of the proceedings. On appeal, his appointed counsel found no arguable issues and filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant personally filed a supplemental brief contending that he had made a prima facie showing because the prosecutor had erroneously informed the jury that it could convict him of murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. We affirm. No Appeal as to Appellant’s Attempted Murder Conviction The information charged appellant with the murder of Donnell Taylor and the attempted murder of another person on a different occasion. Appellant was convicted of both offenses. His section 1172.6 petition sought relief, and the trial court denied relief, as to both convictions. Appellant’s notice of appeal states that he “appeals the denial of his Petition” without mentioning the murder or attempted murder conviction. But his supplemental brief discusses only the murder conviction. Accordingly, if appellant originally intended to appeal from the order denying his petition as to both convictions, we assume that he has abandoned his appeal as to the attempted murder conviction. For the attempted murder plus enhancements, appellant was sentenced to a second-strike term of 55 years to life. The 75- year-to-life term for the murder was ordered to be served consecutively to the 55-year-to-life term. Thus, appellant’s