People v. Chandler CA4/3

Filed 5/27/21 P. v. Chandler CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059482

v. (Super. Ct. No. 96ZF0038)

GREGORY JASON CHANDLER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, John Conley, Judge. Affirmed. Mark Alan Hart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Alan L. Amann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Gregory Jason Chandler, previously convicted of first degree murder with a torture special circumstance, now appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 (Petition).1 He contends the trial court erred in denying the Petition without further evaluating the potential impact certain conspiracy related jury instructions may have had on the jury’s conclusion concerning his intent to kill. We disagree. The jury instruction concerning the torture special circumstance only allowed the jury to find it to be true if the jury concluded defendant possessed the specific intent to kill. Thus, the jury’s true finding on the special circumstance means the record of conviction evidences, as a matter of law, defendant is not eligible for relief under section 1170.95. We affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted by a jury in 1997 of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true special circumstance allegations that the murder involved the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)). Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This court affirmed the conviction on appeal, but modified the sentence to correct the amount of credit for time served in local custody. (People v. Chandler and Scott (July 21, 1999, G021910) [nonpub. opn.].) Factual details concerning the crime may be found in this court’s opinion concerning the underlying conviction. In April 2019, defendant filed the Petition. The trial court reviewed the facial sufficiency of the Petition, appointed counsel for defendant, received briefing from the prosecution and defendant’s counsel and held a hearing concerning defendant’s eligibility for resentencing. In denying the Petition, the trial court concluded defendant was not eligible for resentencing because the record of conviction demonstrated he was not convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequence