People v. Young CA2/5

Filed 3/12/21 P. v. Young CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B302727

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA005027) v.

MICHAEL LLOYD YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura C. Ellison, Judge. Affirmed. Cynthia L. Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Michael Lloyd Young (defendant) was convicted of second degree murder for fatally stabbing a taxi driver he mistakenly suspected of stealing his wallet. The jury found true an allegation that he personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of the murder. (Pen. Code,1 § 12022, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced him, in 1991, to 16 years to life in prison. This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Young (Nov. 13, 1992, B059846) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95. (See generally People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320, 323 (Verdugo), review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493 [Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1437) permits, via section 1170.95, an individual convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory to petition the sentencing court to vacate the conviction and be resentenced on any remaining counts if he or she could not have been convicted of murder because of SB 1437’s changes to the murder statutes].) Defendant checked boxes on his form petition indicating he was convicted of second degree murder pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The prosecution filed a response to defendant’s petition and defendant—represented by appointed counsel—filed a reply. The briefing primarily addressed the constitutionality of SB 1437, but both sides briefly discussed whether defendant merited relief under section 1170.95. The prosecution contended defendant was