People v. Mayes CA3

Filed 6/28/21 P. v. Mayes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090622

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRFE20110007803, v. SF119150A)

STEDVIENO MAYES,

Defendant and Appellant.

In March 2013, a jury found defendant Stedvieno Mayes guilty of numerous crimes, including first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and two counts of kidnapping to commit robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)). The jury also found true allegations that defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of the kidnappings. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) In 2015, we remanded the matter to correct a sentencing error

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

but otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Mayes (July 7, 2015, C073853) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under newly enacted section 1170.95. The trial court found defendant ineligible for relief in a written order, entered without eliciting any response from the People or holding a hearing. Defendant timely appealed and now contends the trial court erred by denying his petition without first appointing counsel and giving the parties the opportunity to file additional briefing. The People concede the issue and agree the matter should be remanded for further proceedings. For the reasons stated below, we accept the People’s concession. I LEGAL BACKGROUND “Under prior California law, a defendant who aided and abetted a crime, the natural and probable consequence of which was murder, could be convicted not only of the target crime but also of the resulting murder. (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155, 161.) This was true irrespective of whether the defendant harbored malice aforethought. Liability was imposed ‘ “for the criminal harms [the defendant] . . . naturally, probably, and foreseeably put in motion.” [Citations.]’ (Id. at pp. 164-165, italics omitted.)” (In re R.G. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 141, 144.) On September 30, 2018, the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). Senate Bill No. 1437 was enacted to “amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) Effective January 1, 2019, the legislation amended sections 188 and 189 and added section 1170.95 to the Penal Code.