People v. Joyner CA3

Filed 4/19/21 P. v. Joyner CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C091224

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F07948)

v.

SEAN JOYNER,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal arises from the trial court’s denial of defendant Sean Joyner’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95. To facilitate our review, we will summarize the relevant background facts from our opinion in defendant’s previous appeal from the underlying conviction. (People v. Joyner (Oct. 25, 2013, C071202) [nonpub. opn.].)2

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. 2 We previously took judicial notice of this opinion and incorporated it, along with the record from defendant’s direct appeal, into the record on this appeal.

1

Defendant and codefendant Nicholas Newsome, both of whom were gang members, confronted the victim, a rival gang member, outside of a nightclub. The victim turned around and someone shot and killed him. Defendant later texted several incriminating messages to the mother of his son, although he would not tell her whether he was the shooter. (People v. Joyner, supra, C071202 at pp. 1-2.) At trial, the jury was instructed on theories of direct aiding and abetting, murder with malice aforethought, and voluntary manslaughter. The jury did not receive any instructions on felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and found true allegations the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang and that at least one principal personally discharged a firearm. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 40 years to life in prison. We affirmed the convictions on appeal. (People v. Joyner, supra, C071202 at pp. 2-3, 7.) After the enactment of section 1170.95, defendant filed a postjudgment petition for resentencing. (Sen. Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) The trial court appointed counsel to represent defendant and both parties submitted briefing. The trial court issued a written order denying the petition, saying: “Neither party appears to have examined the court’s underlying file for case No. 09F07948, a simple review of which shows clearly that defendant Joyner is ineligible for . . . § 1170.95 relief from his second degree murder conviction because the jury was not instructed on either a felony-murder theory or the natural and [probable] consequences doctrine. “Specifically, the jury found defendant Joyner not guilty of first degree murder and instead convicted defendant Joyner of second degree murder with . . . §§ 186.22(b) and 12022.53(e)(1) enhancements found true. The jury had been instructed with CALCRIM No. 401, that ‘[t]o prove that a defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and abetting that crime,’ the People needed to prove that the perpetrator committed the