People v. Horstman CA1/3

Filed 9/24/20 P. v. Horstman CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A159732 v. JEFFREY PAUL HORSTMAN, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FC30086) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jeffrey Paul Horstman1 appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate his conviction and to be resentenced pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.2 His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The brief includes counsel’s declaration stating that he informed defendant of his intent to file a Wende brief on his behalf, that he mailed a copy of the brief to defendant, and that

1 The trial court paperwork (indictment, minute orders, probation report, abstract) and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation paperwork spell defendant’s first name as “Jeffrey,” but his name is also spelled “Jeffery” in the record provided to us and in his brief, with no explanation concerning the spelling discrepancy. For clarity, we have adopted usage of the spelling “Jeffrey” in this opinion. 2 All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

he apprised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the Wende brief filing. Defendant did not subsequently file a supplemental brief. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no reasonably arguable issues requiring further review. We affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1991, a grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and an enhancement for personally using a knife (§ 12022, subd. (b)). It was further alleged that defendant committed the murder while engaged in the commission of a robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) Defendant pled no contest to first degree murder and admitted the knife use enhancement in exchange for the dismissal of the special circumstance allegation and a 26-to-life sentence. He was sentenced to a term of 25-to-life for the murder count, plus a consecutive one-year term for the knife enhancement. In short, the facts underlying the offense in this case are as follows. Defendant was with his girlfriend and their two-year old child near a shopping center. They asked the victim, Farrell Franklin Crone, for a ride and the victim agreed. While the victim was driving, defendant grabbed him, told him to get out of the car, and a struggle ensued. Eventually, the victim got out of the car, only to collapse in an empty field and die within minutes from a stab wound to his chest. Defendant told people that he stabbed the victim. At the time, defendant was under the influence of alcohol and drugs. In 2019, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to recently enacted section 1170.95. In his petition, defendant checked boxes indicating: a charging document was filed against him allowing the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine; he pled guilty or no contest to