People v. Saterfield CA3

Filed 11/5/25 P. v. Saterfield CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

C102552 THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE008865) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICHARD SATERFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Richard Saterfield appeals an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage after the trial court concluded defendant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law because he was convicted five months after the effective date of the amended statutes. Appointed counsel for defendant asks this court to conduct an independent review of the record to

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing: (1) the trial court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing because the jury was instructed on malice; (2) the trial court improperly imposed a firearm enhancement as it was not pled or proven; and (3) appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise these claims. Finding no merit in these claims, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Claiming he was being followed, defendant brought a gun into a store where his codefendant Hieu Van Hoang was eating. Minutes later, Hoang fatally shot two teenage brothers in the store’s parking lot, with the gun supplied by defendant. (People v. Saterfield (Apr. 29, 2021, C089886) [nonpub. opn.].)2 In May 2019, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). The jury also found true the special circumstances that defendant committed multiple murders. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) The trial court sentenced defendant to consecutive sentences of life without parole, plus an additional 20-year term for the firearm enhancement. We affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Saterfield, supra, C089886.) In April 2024, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The petition alleged that he was charged under a theory that allowed malice to be imputed to him based solely on his participation in a crime and he could not currently be