California Court of Appeal Oct 24, 2025 No. E083440Unpublished
Filed 10/24/25 P. v. Robinson CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083440
v. (Super.Ct.No. VCR4215)
DARREN LEON ROBINSON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. John P. Vander
Feer, Judge. Affirmed.
Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and
Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Darren Leon Robinson appeals the denial of his petition
for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. His conviction offenses were
1
committed in 1988, when he was 19 years old. His only appellate argument is that the
trial court failed to consider all the hallmarks of youth in determining whether he was a
major participant in the robbery who acted with reckless indifference to human life. This
We review the superior court’s decision to deny the petition after an evidentiary
hearing for substantial evidence, provided the court understood the elements of the
offense and applied the proper standard and burden of proof. (See People v. Reyes
(2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988; People v. Vargas (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 943, 951.) 2 Robinson’s argument fails on the merits. The trial court found Robinson acted
with intent to kill, and he has not contested on appeal that substantial evidence supports
that conclusion. California courts have extended consideration of a young adult
offender’s age only to resentencing petitions turning on current law of felony-murder or
implied malice murder; they have not extended it to express malice murder. (See People
v. Jimenez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 994, 1005; People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th
400, 417-418.) Rightly so; if Robinson acted with intent to kill, he had the requisite
mental state for murder under current law, no matter whether his youth might have some
bearing on his ability to appreciate the risks and consequences of dangerous conduct like
committing robbery. (Strong, supra, 13 Cal.5th at p. 708; § 189.)
2 The People argue that Robinson forfeited his claim of error, but in the interest of judicial economy we prefer to address the claim on the merits.
6
Because the trial court found Robinson acted with intent to kill, no authority
required it to consider his youth at all, as it was not a relevant consideration. We need
not consider whether, in the absence of that intent to kill finding, the trial court’s
consideration of Robinson’s youth in relation to other theories of murder would have
been adequate.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Robinson’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
FIELDS J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's resentencing petition because the trial court's finding that the defendant acted with intent to kill provided an independently sufficient basis for denial, rendering the defendant's arguments regarding his youth irrelevant.
Issues
Whether the trial court failed to adequately consider the defendant's youth when denying a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because the trial court found Robinson acted with intent to kill, no authority required it to consider his youth at all, as it was not a relevant consideration.”