People v. Roundtree CA1/1

Filed 3/22/21 P. v. Roundtree CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159477 v. JACK EDWARD ROUNDTREE, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC008779A) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jack Edward Roundtree filed a petition for resentencing of his felony-murder conviction pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170.95. The trial court concluded he failed to make a prima facie showing for relief, declined to issue an order to show cause, and denied his petition. On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in holding him ineligible for relief and failing to issue an order to show cause. We agree and reverse. I. BACKGROUND As relevant to this appeal, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder (former § 187) and found true a felony-murder special circumstance (§ 190.2, former subd. (a)(17)(i)). Defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as to his murder conviction. Defendant appealed from

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

his conviction, and it was affirmed by this court. (People v. Roundtree (Nov. 19, 1982, A013425) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The petition stated defendant was prosecuted and convicted of “1st or 2nd degree murder pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine.” It further asserted defendant could not now be convicted of first degree murder because (1) he was not the actual killer, (2) he did not have intent to assist the actual killer, (3) he was not a major participant in the felony or act with reckless indifference to human life during the course of the felony, and (4) the victim was not a peace officer. The prosecutor opposed defendant’s petition, arguing defendant failed to state a prima facie case for relief because the record indicated he was ineligible as a matter of law.2 The prosecutor asserted defendant “could still be convicted” of being the actual killer or an aider and abettor acting with intent to kill. She also asserted defendant was “a ‘major participant’ of the underlying robbery while acting with a ‘reckless indifference to human life.’ ” In response, defendant argued he had met the prima facie showing for relief. He noted the prosecution acknowledged defendant was convicted on a felony-murder theory, the evidence at trial established a codefendant to be the shooter, and none of the jury instructions required a finding that defendant was a major participant in the underlying offense or acted with reckless indifference to human life.