People v. Martinez CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Aug 18, 2021 No. B306140Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred by summarily denying a facially compliant resentencing petition without appointing counsel or allowing briefing, as required by People v. Lewis. Because the record of conviction did not conclusively establish ineligibility as a matter of law, the case must be remanded for an order to show cause and further proceedings.

Issues

Whether a trial court must appoint counsel and permit briefing before summarily denying a facially sufficient Penal Code section 1170.95 petition.
Whether the trial court's summary denial of the petition was harmless error under the standard set forth in People v. Lewis.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is impossible to now conclude that the record of conviction shows as a matter of law that defendant was not convicted under the natural and probable consequence doctrine as alleged in his section 1170.95 petition.”

Filed 8/18/21 P. v. Martinez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B306140

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA361997) v.

SANTOS MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Renee Korn, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Joanna McKim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriquez, Acting Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Thomas C. Hsieh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Defendant and appellant Santos Martinez (defendant) appeals from the summary denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.1 Defendant contends that the trial court was required to appoint counsel and permit briefing prior to determining defendant’s eligibility for relief. We agree with defendant and remand for issuance of an order to show cause and further proceedings consistent with subdivision (d) of section 1170.95.

BACKGROUND The 2013 murder conviction In 2013 a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder with findings that a principal personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death and that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 50 years to life in prison. On direct appeal, we affirmed the judgment in People v. Martinez (Dec. 10, 2014, B253468) (nonpub. opn.) (Martinez I).2 Trial evidence At the time of the murder, both defendant and his codefendant Francisco Gutierrez were active members of the Playboys gang, and the victim Angel Bautista was a member of a rival gang. Bautista and a friend were waiting outside a market one evening in August 2007, when defendant approached, issued

People v. Martinez CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B306140

SANTOS MARTINEZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief