People v. Hicks CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 2021 No. B307878Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a conviction for conspiracy to commit kidnapping for robbery, which carries a life sentence, constitutes a violent felony under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c)(7), regardless of whether the underlying act occurred.

Issues

Whether a conspiracy conviction punishable by life imprisonment qualifies as a violent felony under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c)(7).
Whether the rule of lenity applies to the interpretation of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (c)(7).
Whether the defendant is eligible for parole consideration under Proposition 57.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Undeniably, appellant’s crime was a “violent felony” under section 667.5, subdivision (c)(7) because he was subject to a life sentence.”

“The relevant statutory provision—section 667.5, subdivision (c)(7)—is not ambiguous because it has only one reasonable interpretation: if a felony is punishable by life in prison, the felony qualifies as violent.”

Filed 11/5/21 P. v. Hicks CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B307878

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA370760) v.

KEVIN HICKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: On February 7, 2014, Kevin Hicks (appellant) was convicted of conspiracy to commit kidnaping for robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 182, subd. (a)(1) and 209, subd. (a).1 He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after

1 All further statutory refences are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. We affirmed appellant’s conviction in People v. Rose (Dec. 1, 2015, B254912) [nonpub. opn.] (Rose). The opinion recounts evidence that appellant and two others planned to kidnap a

14 years, plus one year because a principal was armed (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and five years because appellant had committed a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). In Rose, we reversed the firearm enhancement and otherwise affirmed the judgment. According to appellant, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) interpreted his offense as a violent felony (§ 667.5, subd. (c)). He filed a request seeking clarification that his conviction was for a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)), claiming this would impact the calculation of his good- time credits and release date.2 The trial court treated the request as a petition for writ of habeas corpus3 and invited an informal response from the District Attorney. The District Attorney agreed that appellant was convicted of a serious felony. The trial court declared that appellant’s crime was a serious, nonviolent felony and ordered the prison officials to adjust its

People v. Hicks CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B307878

KEVIN HICKS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief