People v. Duncan CA2/3
Filed 10/2/20 P. v. Duncan CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, B301367
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA060230 v.
JAMAAL LAMONT DUNCAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke II, Judge. Affirmed.
Nancy J. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________
In 2002 a jury convicted defendant and appellant Jamaal Lamont Duncan of the second degree murder of Gregory Davenport. The jury found true an allegation that Duncan personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing Davenport’s death within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (d).1 We affirmed Duncan’s conviction in 2004. (People v. Duncan (Apr. 15, 2004, B160379) [nonpub. opn.] (Duncan I).)2 After Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437) took effect, Duncan filed on June 18, 2019 a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. On a downloadable form, Duncan checked boxes 1, 2a, 3, 4, and 6. Box 2a states, “At trial, I was convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” On August 9, 2019, the trial court summarily denied Duncan’s petition. The court stated, “The petition is summarily denied because the petitioner is not entitled to relief as a matter of law, for the following reasons: [¶] The petitioner was convicted of murder but the court file reflects that the petitioner was the actual killer and was not convicted under a theory of felony-murder of any degree, or a theory of natural and probable consequences. [¶] The appellate opinion affirming the petitioner’s conviction and sentence reflects that the petitioner was the actual killer and
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)