People v. Horton CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Feb 16, 2021 No. B303337Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by engaging in impermissible fact-finding and failing to issue an order to show cause regarding the defendant's Penal Code section 1170.95 petition, as the record did not establish ineligibility as a matter of law.

Issues

Did the trial court err in concluding the defendant failed to state a prima facie case for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95?
May a trial court engage in fact-finding during the second stage of a section 1170.95 prima facie analysis?

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court may not engage in “fact finding” at this stage; rather, step two is concerned with examining the record of conviction to determine whether the defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law.”

“The trial court erred in placing the burden on Horton to prove he could not be convicted of murder under the amended law, and drawing all inferences in favor of the conviction.”

Filed 2/11/21 P. v. Horton CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B303337

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA046081) v.

JOHN T. HORTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa B. Lench, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Joshua L. Siegel, 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, Daniel C. Chang and Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

Defendant and appellant John Horton, who was convicted of first degree murder, appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under newly-enacted Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court appointed counsel for Horton and set the matter for a hearing, then denied the petition. On appeal, Horton argues, respondent concedes, and we agree the trial court erred in concluding Horton had not stated a prima facie case for relief. We reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1991, Horton was charged with first degree murder, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. The evidence at trial showed that Horton and two friends, Rashied Sims and Byone Woods III, robbed a man at gunpoint. While Horton and Sims snatched chains from the victim’s neck, Woods held a gun to the victim’s head. When the victim attacked the gunman, Sims separated the men. The victim then struggled again with Woods, who shot him. The jury was instructed on felony murder. In 1993, Horton was found guilty of all charges, and sentenced to a total of 35 years to life. In 2019, Horton filed a section 1170.95 petition for resentencing of his murder conviction.2 The trial court appointed

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

People v. Horton CA2/5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, B303337

JOHN T. HORTON,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.

AI Brief