People v. Townsend CA3

Filed 3/9/21 P. v. Townsend CA3 Reposted to provide corrected version NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092228

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 97F04542)

v.

WILLIAM TOWNSEND,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant William Townsend’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95. To facilitate our review, we will summarize the relevant background facts from our nonpublished opinion in

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

defendant’s previous appeal from the underlying conviction. (People v. Townsend (June 30, 2000, C030565) [nonpub. opn.].)2 Defendant got in a fight with the victim, the son-in-law of defendant’s fiancée, in front of the fiancée’s house. The victim “pushed and choked defendant” before the two broke apart and defendant went into the house. The victim headed toward his car, which was parked on the street. About 30 seconds later, defendant came out of the house with a large knife and stabbed the victim in the chest, killing him. (People v. Townsend, supra, C030565 at pp. 2-4, 6.) The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and found true an allegation he personally used a deadly weapon, a knife, in the murder. (People v. Townsend, supra, C030565 at p. 1.) The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 16 years to life. We affirmed defendant’s conviction on appeal. (Id. at p. 24.) After the enactment of section 1170.95, defendant filed a postjudgment petition for resentencing. (Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) In the petition, defendant stated he “committed the homicidal act,” but asserted the jury at his trial had been instructed on a felony-murder theory and his conviction had thus been “obtained in violation of due process.” The petition also attached various documents from his case file, such as the opening brief for defendant’s habeas appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, jury instructions and minute orders from trial, an abstract of judgment, and a parole reference letter. The trial court appointed counsel to represent defendant and both parties submitted briefing. The trial court issued a written order denying the petition, finding: “Not in dispute is that Defendant Townsend was (1) the actual killer and (2) convicted of malice murder