People v. Meza CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Aug 12, 2021 No. B307736Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the trial court erred by summarily denying the defendant's section 1170.95 petition without appointing counsel, the error was harmless because the defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law as a direct aider and abettor.

Issues

Did the trial court err in summarily denying the defendant's section 1170.95 petition without appointing counsel or holding an evidentiary hearing?
Is a defendant who was convicted as a direct aider and abettor eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Lewis also held that they can be harmless where, as here, the defendant is otherwise ineligible for relief as a matter of law.”

“the record of conviction indicates that he was found guilty of second degree murder as a direct aider and abettor, precluding him from relief under section 1170.95.”

“Because defendant’s jury was not instructed on either of the two theories on which relief can be granted under section 1170.95, defendant is ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95 as a matter of law.”

Filed 8/12/21 P. v. Meza CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B307736

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA054914- v. 02)

BRAYAN MARTIN MEZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael D. Abzug, Judge. Affirmed.

Michael C. Sampson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ****** Brayan Martin Meza (defendant) was convicted of second degree murder in 2013 for his role in the death of David Hendricks. In 2019, he filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95,1 which the trial court summarily denied. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the court erred in summarily denying his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Although our Supreme Court in People v. Lewis (July 26, 2021, S260598) ___Cal.5th___ [2021 Cal.Lexis 5258] (Lewis) has held that summary denials are not procedurally appropriate, Lewis also held that they can be harmless where, as here, the defendant is otherwise ineligible for relief as a matter of law. Thus, we affirm the denial of his petition. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 I. Facts Carlos Sotello (Sotello) picked two fist fights with David Hendricks (Hendricks) in a day, and lost both of them. Sotello walked away after the first, but shot and killed Hendricks after the second. Defendant was watching the second fight and holding a gun; during that fight, Sotello retrieved the gun from defendant in order to shoot Hendricks.

People v. Meza CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B307736

BRAYAN MARTIN MEZA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief