People v. Batiste CA2/5

Filed 11/16/20 P. v. Batiste CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B304029

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A786986) v.

PRINCE BATISTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Norman Shapiro, Judge. Dismissed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

In July 1986, Prince Batiste (defendant) confronted his wife’s lover in the street outside her apartment and a fight ensued. For several minutes, defendant hit the other man in the face and kicked him in the head. Defendant then briefly entered his wife’s apartment, and when he subsequently re-emerged, he recommenced beating the victim using his fists, feet, and a stick while yelling “Die bitch!” Defendant left the victim unconscious in the street, and the victim was run over by a car—killing him. A jury convicted defendant of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187) and found true allegations that he used deadly and dangerous weapons (a stabbing weapon and shod feet) (§ 12022(b)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 1203.075).2 We affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Batiste (Mar. 29, 1989, B032031 [nonpub. opn.].) In July 2019, defendant petitioned for resentencing pursuant to newly enacted section 1170.95. With his pre-printed petition, defendant submitted a typed personal statement in which he described beating his wife’s lover and leaving the man unconscious in the street. Defendant stated he took “full responsibility” for the victim’s death and asked the superior court to give him a “second chance” because after three decades in prison he had changed his “criminal thinking.”