In re Scoggins CA3

Filed 8/31/20 In re Scoggins CA3 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

C084358 In re WILLIE SCOGGINS (Super. Ct. No. 08F04643) on Habeas Corpus. OPINION ON REMAND

Samuel Wilson was murdered during the attempted commission of a robbery set up by Willie Scoggins. The robbery, planned by Scoggins, was to be carried out by two of Scoggins’s friends, James Howard and Randall Powell, and involved these individuals “beat[ing] the shit out of [Wilson]” and taking his money. When Wilson ran, Powell shot and killed him. There was no evidence Scoggins planned for a gun to be used or knew Powell was armed.

1

In 2011, a jury convicted Scoggins of first degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189)1, finding true a robbery-murder special-circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), and attempted robbery (§§ 664/211). The jury also found a principal was armed during the commission of the offenses. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) Under section 190.2, subdivision (d), “every person, not the actual killer, who, with reckless indifference to human life and as a major participant, aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, solicits, requests, or assists in the commission of a felony enumerated in paragraph (17) of subdivision (a) which results in the death of some person or persons, and who is found guilty of murder in the first degree therefor, shall be punished by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole . . . .” (Italics added.) Based on this provision, the trial court sentenced Scoggins to serve life without the possibility of parole in state prison. In 2014, we affirmed the judgment entered against Scoggins and rejected, among other assertions, his claim the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding was unsupported by sufficient substantial evidence he acted with reckless indifference to human life. Our Supreme Court denied his petition for review. Thereafter, in 2015 and 2016, Scoggins filed various petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the Sacramento County Superior Court and in this court, again challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the robbery-murder special-circumstance finding. Each was denied. In May 2016, Scoggins filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in our Supreme Court, also challenging the special circumstance finding. In the meantime, that court decided People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks), setting forth factors to be used in determining whether or not a defendant’s “participation ‘in criminal activities known to