People v. Young CA4/3

Filed 1/11/21 P. v. Young CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G057741

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF106722)

WESLEY IRA YOUNG, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Carl Fabian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne G. McGinnis and Quisteen S. Shum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2006, appellant Wesley Ira Young was convicted of special circumstance murder and other crimes stemming from a gang-related shooting. In 2019, he petitioned for relief pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1437 (SB 1437), which retroactively restricted the scope of vicarious liability for the crime of murder. Appellant sought resentencing on the basis his conduct did not constitute murder as redefined by SB 1437. However, the trial court summarily denied his petition in light of the jury’s true finding on the special circumstance allegation. Because that finding required the jury to conclude appellant acted with the intent to kill, the trial court determined appellant was ineligible for resentencing under SB 1437. Appellant contends the trial court’s ruling was erroneous, and we agree. As explained below, the jury’s finding appellant acted with the intent to kill did not establish, in and of itself, he was ineligible for resentencing. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings on appellant’s petition. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the underlying facts is set forth in the two prior opinions we have written in this case. (See People v. Scott, et al. (Mar. 30, 2009, G040888) [nonpub. opn.] (Young I) and People v. Young (Mar. 8, 2018, G040888) [nonpub. opn.] (Young II).) In short, appellant and several other members of his gang 1 went to a party in Corona to exact revenge on Bryan Williams for a prior incident. They started by attacking Williams in the garage and beating him up. Then, when the host of the party intervened and broke up the attack, three members of appellant’s group pulled out guns and started shooting. One of the shots struck and killed party guest Daveon Lee. Appellant and two other members of his group (Tavares Scott and Mario Gray) were charged with first degree premeditated murder, attempted premeditated murder and shooting at an inhabited dwelling. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd.