People v. Stratis CA2/5

Filed 5/5/16 P. v. Stratis CA2/5 On remand NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B229255

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA083187) v.

CHRISTOPHER STRATIS et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Mike Camacho, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with instruction. Leslie Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Christopher Stratis. Jeralyn Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Victor Manuel Maurtua, III. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2013, this court considered the appeals of defendants and appellants Christopher Stratis and Victor Manuel Maurtua III. Each challenged the judgment corresponding to their convictions for first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)).1 Defendant’s were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) because the jury found the murder was perpetrated during the commission of a burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(G)). Stratis and Maurtua both contended there was insufficient evidence to support the burglary-murder special circumstance finding and both maintained their LWOP sentences constituted cruel and/or unusual punishment under the state and federal Constitutions. Stratis also argued the trial court improperly imposed a parole revocation fine. We reversed Stratis’s sentence of LWOP and remanded the matter for resentencing with adherence to the guidelines set forth in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. ___ [132 S.Ct. 2455]. 2 We additionally ordered the trial court to recalculate Stratis’s presentence credit award and modified the judgment against Maurtua to omit a parole revocation fine. In all other respects, the judgments were affirmed. The California Supreme Court initially granted the petitions for review filed by the Attorney General and Stratis. Thereafter, the Supreme Court transferred review to this court for reconsideration in light of People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks)—a case explaining the requirement that a defendant who is an aider and abettor to a murder must have conducted himself as a major participant with reckless indifference to human life in order to justify a finding that the he committed the murder under a special circumstance, e.g., during a burglary. The Supreme Court order directed as follows: “In