People v. Chase CA2/4

Filed 12/17/20 P. v. Chase CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B303172

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No.MA064957) v.

ERIN HOSEJOSHUA CHASE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles A. Chung, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Victoria H. Stafford, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

In 2017, appellant Erin Hosejoshua Chase pled no contest to first degree murder, a crime that was part of an attempted robbery. He was sentenced to 25 years to life. After the enactment of Penal Code section 1170.95,1 appellant filed a petition for resentencing under that statute. Appellant and the Los Angeles County District Attorney (the People) submitted briefing, and the trial court denied appellant’s petition. The court found that based on the facts of the crime as stated in the People’s opposition, appellant was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, and was therefore ineligible for resentencing. On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in relying on the facts in the People’s opposition, which were not supported by the case record or other evidence. Appellant contends the trial court should have issued an order to show cause and ordered an evidentiary hearing. The Attorney General concedes that a hearing was warranted under the circumstances. We agree, reverse the trial court’s ruling, and remand for further proceedings consistent with section 1170.95. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to the People’s opposition to appellant’s section 1170.95 motion, the underling crime occurred on June 28, 2014 when appellant, Jason West, and Reginald Young went to victim Marc Spinner’s home with the intent to rob Spinner of drugs and money. West entered the home, purchased marijuana and Xanax from Spinner, and went back outside to where appellant and