People v. King CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jan 27, 2021 No. B301396Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court may summarily deny a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition without appointing counsel if the record of conviction demonstrates as a matter of law that the petitioner is ineligible for relief.

Issues

Whether a trial court must appoint counsel and permit briefing before determining a petitioner's eligibility for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95.
Whether the trial court erred in summarily denying the petition based on the record of conviction showing the defendant was the actual killer.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A petitioner under section 1170.95 is entitled to the appointment of counsel, the opportunity for further briefing, and a hearing only if in his petition, a prima facie showing that he is entitled to relief is made.”

“the trial court correctly concluded that defendant did not make a prima facie case for relief because the record of conviction establishes, as a matter of law, that he is not eligible for relief.”

Filed 1/27/21 P. v. King CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B301396

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A393928) v.

CHARLES EARL KING,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Norman J. Shapiro, Judge. Affirmed. Daniel G. Koryn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorneys General, Charles S. Lee and David W. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Charles Earl King (defendant) appeals from the summary denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 Defendant contends that the trial court was required to appoint counsel and permit briefing prior to making a determination of defendant’s eligibility for relief. Finding no merit to defendant’s contention, we affirm the order.

BACKGROUND The 1984 conviction2 On August 9, 1983, De Jun Gant was shot and killed in the presence of at least six witnesses as he was leaving a liquor store. Four of the witnesses positively identified defendant as the shooter, and the other two witnesses said that defendant resembled the shooter. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder with a true finding pursuant to section 12022.5 that he personally used a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 27 years to life. The conviction was affirmed on appeal.

The section 1170.95 petition In May 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. On the form petition, defendant checked the boxes for the allegations that he had been charged with murder, that he was not the actual killer, that he was convicted “pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable

People v. King CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B301396

CHARLES EARL KING,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief