People v. Tyler CA2/4

Filed 6/30/21 P. v. Tyler CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B308658

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA300425) v.

WILLIAM ELDRIDGE TYLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dabney, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BACKGROUND In December 2008, appellant William Eldridge Tyler, Jr. was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187,1 count one) and attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, 211, count two). The jury found true allegations that appellant personally and intentionally discharged a handgun causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (b), (c), (d)), the murder occurred during the commission of the attempted robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)), and the attempted robbery was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd (b)(1)(A)). In April 2009, the court sentenced appellant on count one to 50 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for the murder plus 25 years to life for the gun allegation under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). On count two, the court sentenced appellant to five years to run concurrently to count one, consisting of the midterm of two years for the attempted robbery and three years for the gang allegation. This court affirmed the judgment in 2011. (People v. Tyler (Jan. 31, 2011, B216489) [nonpub. opn.].) On September 1, 2020, appellant filed a “motion for a juvenile fitness/transfer hearing” under Proposition 57. Appellant stated in a declaration that he was 16 years old at the time of the crimes, and he “was NEVER afforded a juvenile/transfer fitness hearing as the prosecution was permitted to proceed with direct filing in adult criminal court.” He also asserted that equal protection rights under the United States Constitution entitled him to a juvenile fitness/transfer hearing. Appellant attached a summary of his “rehabilitative efforts since conviction” to be considered in a youth offender