People v. Condiff CA2/8

Filed 11/4/21 P. v. Condiff CA2/8 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B296181

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA051505) v.

NORMAN LOUIS CONDIFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teri Schwartz, Judge. Affirmed. Mark S. Givens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Amanda Lopez and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Norman Louis Condiff challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.). In 2005, a jury convicted Condiff of first degree murder and other crimes. The jury made special circumstance findings about the murder: Condiff intentionally killed the victim by means of lying in wait and to further his gang. The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel. We affirmed the order denying relief. The Supreme Court directed us to vacate that decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 (Lewis). Under Lewis, the trial court should have appointed Condiff counsel. We affirm, however, because the error was harmless. As a matter of law, the lying-in-wait and gang special circumstance findings make Condiff ineligible for resentencing for his murder conviction. Undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code. I We outline Condiff’s crimes using the opinion in his direct appeal. (People v. Condiff (Aug. 28, 2007, B186654) [nonpub. opn.]; see Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 972 [appellate opinions are typically part of the record of conviction].) The night before his preliminary hearing in a different criminal case, Condiff sought to prevent a witness from testifying. He went with a fellow Blood gang member to the witness’s home. After the witness’s uncle said the witness was not home, Condiff left and returned with another Blood gang member. Condiff waited in a car while his two companions shot the witness’s uncle and grandmother. The uncle survived. The grandmother did not.