People v. Lee CA2/5

Filed 11/25/20 P. v. Lee CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B297947

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA034314) v.

MARQUIS TREVON LEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Allen J. Webster, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Yun K. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Marquis Trevon Lee (defendant) was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to 26 years to life in prison. Decades later, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95,1 a statute that allows a defendant convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to seek to vacate his or her murder conviction. The trial court denied defendant’s petition and we consider whether, as defendant contends, the court prejudicially erred by denying the petition before appointing counsel.

I. BACKGROUND A trial jury convicted defendant on murder and attempted murder charges for his role, with two fellow gang members, in a gang shooting. In April 1996, the trial court sentenced defendant to 26 years to life in prison (25 years to life for the murder and an extra year for a firearm enhancement the jury found true). In February 2019, defendant filed a section 1170.95 petition asserting he was eligible for resentencing because he was not the actual killer, he did not harbor an intent to kill, and he was not a major participant in the crimes of conviction and did not act with reckless indifference to human life. His petition also asked the court to appoint counsel to represent him. The trial court denied the petition without appointing counsel. After summarizing the facts of the case, the trial court concluded defendant evidenced an intent to kill by surrounding a parked car and shooting at the victims. The court further