People v. Roberson CA2/3

Filed 10/19/21 P. v. Roberson CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B305909

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A394764) v.

KEITH CONEY ROBERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David V. Herriford, Judge. Affirmed. Joanna McKim, 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, Michael R. Johnsen and David W. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

Keith Coney Roberson appeals from an order summarily denying his petition for resentencing of his murder conviction pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170.95. A jury convicted Roberson in 1985 of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1) and robbery (§ 211; count 2). The jury found true the special circumstance that Roberson committed the murder in the commission of the robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The jury also found true that Roberson personally used a firearm as to both counts. (§ 12022.5.) Roberson was sentenced to life without possibility of parole plus a 10-year consecutive sentence for the prior convictions; as to count 2 the prison sentence was stayed. In January 1987, we affirmed Roberson’s conviction. (People v. Roberson (Jan. 30, 1987, B016043) [nonpub. opn.].)2 Roberson argues that because the felony murder rule in 1985 allowed for a first degree murder conviction without a finding of malice aforethought, the petition was wrongly denied. We conclude that because the record of conviction conclusively demonstrates Roberson was the actual killer, he is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. We therefore affirm.