People v. Mitchell CA3

Filed 11/4/25 P. v. Mitchell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101006

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F00700)

v.

LOUIS JAMES MITCHELL et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Codefendants Louis James Mitchell and Lonnie Orlando Mitchell appeal the trial court’s denial of their petitions for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage.1 We conclude that the jury instructions at the Mitchells’ trial and the resulting verdicts conclusively establish that the jury convicted the Mitchells on a still- valid theory of murder. We therefore affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. The Mitchells filed their petitions under section 1170.95. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6 without substantive change. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We refer to the statute as section 1172.6 in this opinion.

1

BACKGROUND In December 2010, the Mitchells were involved in a gun battle during which an innocent bystander was killed. (People v. Carney (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1130, 1135-1136.) The People filed an information charging both of them with murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count one) and alleging that each personally and intentionally used and discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c)). The information also charged them with four counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts two through five) and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1); counts nine and ten). The information additionally charged Lonnie Mitchell with possession of an assault weapon (former § 12280, subd. (b); count six). The trial court instructed the jury on August 14, 2014. Among other instructions, the court instructed the jury with a version of CALCRIM No. 402 that said: “The defendants are charged in Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 with assault with a firearm and in Count 1 with murder. [¶] Under this theory of liability called ‘natural and probable consequences’ you must first decide whether a defendant is guilty of assault with a firearm. If you find the defendant is guilty of this crime, you must then decide whether he is guilty of murder. [¶] Under certain circumstances, a person who is guilty of one crime may also be guilty of other crimes that were committed at the same time. [¶] To prove that a defendant is guilty of murder, the People must prove that: 1. The defendant is guilty of assault with a firearm; [¶] 2. During the commission of assault with a firearm a coparticipant in that assault with a firearm committed the crime of murder; [¶] AND [¶] 3. Under all of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that the commission of murder was a natural and probable consequence of the commission of the assault with a firearm. [¶] A coparticipant in a crime is the perpetrator or anyone who aided and abetted the perpetrator. It does not include a victim or innocent bystander. [¶] A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In