People v. Hall CA1/3

Filed 6/30/16 P. v. Hall CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A147192 v. VINCENT HALL, (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. SCN205650) Defendant and Appellant.

Vincent Hall (appellant) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition to recall his sentence and to be resentenced under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, § 1170.1261.)2 Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Proposition 36 amended sections 667 and 1170.12 so that a 25 years to life prison term is applied only where the third strike offense is a serious or violent felony or the prosecution pleads and proves an enumerated factor. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C).) It allows an inmate to petition to recall his sentence and be resentenced as a second strike offender where he is “presently serving an indeterminate term of imprisonment” and his “sentence under this act would not have been an indeterminate life sentence.” (§ 1170.126, subds. (a), (b).) An inmate is eligible for resentencing if none of his commitment offenses constitutes serious or violent felonies and none of the enumerated disqualifying factors applies. (§ 1170.126, subd. (e).) Resentencing may nonetheless be refused if the trial court, in its discretion, determines that resentencing would “pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.” (§ 1170.126, subd. (f).)

1

supplemental brief and did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 1, 2007, police inspector John Keane, acting undercover, purchased four oxycodone pills from appellant in exchange for $160 of marked city funds. Appellant was not arrested at the time because the purchase/sale was part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. The next night, June 2, 2007, Jacob Lee and his friend Devin Marzullo went to the Tenderloin District in San Francisco to buy methadone pills. Lee watched as Marzullo came face to face with appellant, who was standing next to his bicycle. Although Lee could not hear the conversation between Marzullo and appellant, he saw an exchange between the two men take place. Marzullo, unarmed and with his hands by his side, did not make any aggressive gestures toward appellant. Appellant walked his bicycle to the wall of a nearby building and leaned the bicycle against the wall. Appellant then turned around, made a lunge forward, like a leap, and stabbed Marzullo in the chest as Marzullo was backing up. Lee did not see the knife in appellant’s hand. After the stabbing, Marzullo’s body jerked backward and blood squirted from the left side of his chest. Marzullo ran into the street and then turned around, quickly walked away, and collapsed on the street. Marzullo was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. Eleven days after Marzullo’s murder, on June 13, 2007, appellant arranged another narcotics transaction with Keane, the same undercover inspector from the June 1, 2007 sale. Appellant approached Keane on a bicycle in the area of Jones and Turk Street— within one block of the stabbing—and sold four oxycodone pills to Keane in exchange for $160 of marked city funds. The police arrested appellant after the second sale. As a marked police car approached, appellant got off his bicycle and threw on the ground a large plastic bag that contained 31 tablets of Percocet—another name for oxycodone—and seven capsules of oxycodone. After his arrest, appellant was found in possession of $160 in marked city funds, $1,772 in cash, a cell phone, and a pill bottle with his name on it containing 150