People v. Burleson CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 2020 No. F079169Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court errs by relying on facts from a codefendant's appellate record when determining a defendant's eligibility for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.

Issues

Did the trial court err by considering facts from a codefendant's appellate record during the initial screening of a section 1170.95 petition?

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“section 1170.95 did not permit it to consider the record created in an action to which defendant was not a party.”

“The parties agree, as do we, that the trial court’s reliance on the factual summary from Chatman’s appeal was error.”

Filed 9/10/20 P. v. Burleson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F079169 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SUF7138B) v.

GAYLIN LYNN BURLESON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Deborah L. Hawkins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Peter H. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant Gaylin Lynn Burleson pled guilty to robbery, kidnapping for robbery, and murder. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in failing to follow the procedure created by Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437). The People concede the trial court did not follow the appropriate procedure. We accept the People’s concession, reverse, and remand. We affirm in all other respects. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY On September 14, 1971,1 a San Joaquin County grand jury indicted defendant and his two codefendants, Lonnie Chatman and Robert Hardcastle, for robbery (Penal Code, § 211;2 count 1), kidnapping for the purpose of robbery (§ 209; count 2), and murder (§ 187; count 3). On November 23, the indictment was amended to also allege that defendant had suffered two prior convictions. On the same date, defendant pled guilty to first degree robbery, kidnapping for the purpose of robbery, and first degree murder, and admitted both prior conviction allegations. On December 21, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of life in prison on count 3. The court imposed terms on counts 1 and 2 to run concurrently to the term on count 3. About 48 years later, on February 11, 2019, defendant filed a petition in Merced County Superior Court to vacate his murder conviction and to be resentenced under section 1170.95. On April 8, 2019, the Merced County Superior Court denied defendant’s petition. In reaching its decision, the court relied upon a factual summary from the appellate opinion issued in Chatman’s appeal. The trial court summarized the facts as follows:

People v. Burleson CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief