People v. Hall CA2/6

Filed 1/5/15 P. v. Hall CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B252482 (Super. Ct. No. CR44175) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

DOUGLAS VAUGHN HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Douglas Vaughn Hall appeals the order denying his petition to recall his sentence under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). (Pen. Code,1 § 1170.126.) Appellant contends the court erred in finding that resentencing him would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1999, appellant was convicted in a court trial of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). He had prior strike convictions for burglary (§ 459), involuntary manslaughter (former § 192.2, now § 192, subd. (b)), and robbery (Or. Rev. Stats., § 164.405). The trial court sentenced him to serve 25 years to life in prison, in accordance with the three strikes law.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In December 2012, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking resentencing under the Act. The trial court construed the petition as a statutory petition for resentencing. The People opposed the petition on the ground that resentencing appellant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as contemplated under subdivision (f) of the Act. Appellant testified at the hearing on the petition and submitted documentary evidence. After hearing argument, the court denied the petition. The court found that numerous factors weighed in favor of a finding that resentencing appellant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. In 1979, appellant was charged with attempted murder and was convicted of second degree robbery. He was accompanied by others, yet was the only one who possessed a gun and fired it. Although appellant testified at the hearing that he only meant to frighten his victims, the court found this did not diminish the fact that he actually fired the gun. In 1983, appellant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter pursuant to a plea bargain. The court found the circumstances of the crime were "particularly disturbing and implicate serious public safety concerns," in that appellant escalated the situation that led to his victim's death by arming himself with a large butcher knife. Although appellant testified at the hearing that he had acted in self-defense, the evidence indicated that appellant had inflicted five stab wounds to the front of the victim's body and six to the back, three of which were lethal. Appellant committed additional theft and drug-related crimes in 1983 and 1993. In 1997, he was convicted of committing battery on a law enforcement officer. The following year, he was convicted of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (former § 12020). Less than a year later, he was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). The court noted that "while any one of the crimes may seem 'remote' to the year 2013, what is striking to the court is the continuous criminal conduct from 1978 up through the conviction on April 12, 1999." The court found appellant's disciplinary record while in custody also weighed heavily in favor of a finding that he posed an unreasonable risk of danger to