People v. Garcia CA2/4

Filed 8/18/20 P. v. Garcia CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B301331

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA109070) v.

RAMIRO MACIAS GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Morris Bruce Jones, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Charles S. Lee and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Ramiro Macias Garcia was convicted of second degree murder for his involvement in two gang-related shootings that occurred in 1995. Appellant was not the shooter in either instance. In 2019, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court denied the petition without appointing counsel or conducting a hearing, finding that appellant was ineligible for relief because this court’s opinion in appellant’s direct appeal held there was sufficient evidence to support one conviction under an aiding and abetting theory, and because appellant was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life. The trial court further held that section 1170.95 was unconstitutional. On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court’s summary denial was erroneous, in that appellant’s petition did not demonstrate that he was ineligible for relief and section 1170.95 is constitutional. The Attorney General concedes that summary denial was unwarranted under the circumstances. We agree, reverse the trial court’s ruling, and remand for further proceedings consistent with section 1170.95. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Conviction and appeal The details of appellant’s underlying convictions are in our previous opinion, People v. Aparicio, et al. (Oct. 7, 1998, B113096 [nonpub. opn.]) (Aparicio).2 That appeal followed a trial in which appellant and two others, Miguel Aparicio and Jose Macias, were