People v. Robinson CA2/7

Filed 11/29/21 P. v. Robinson CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B312619

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA041966) v.

MICHAEL JAY ROBINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Darrell Mavis, Judge. Affirmed. Jennifer Peabody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

The superior court summarily denied Michael Jay Robinson’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 1170.95, finding Robinson ineligible for relief because he had been convicted of second degree murder as the actual killer of David Ambers, not as an accomplice to the homicide under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or the felony-murder rule. We affirm in accordance with the procedure approved in People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, review granted October 14, 2020, S264278. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A jury convicted Robinson in July 2000 of second degree murder (§ 187) and found true the special allegation Robinson had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm proximately causing Ambers’s death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Robinson was sentenced as a third strike offender to an aggregate indeterminate state prison term of 70 years to life. We affirmed Robinson’s conviction on appeal, agreeing with his argument that the trial court had erred in failing to fully instruct the jury on self-defense and in failing to give the antecedent threat instruction requested by defense counsel but held any error was harmless because “[n]o reasonable jury would have determined on this evidence that Robinson acted in self- defense.” We explained, “The evidence before the jury was overwhelming that Robinson killed Ambers not in self-defense but in a violent and misguided response to the victim’s challenge to his status and honor.” (People v. Robinson (May 13, 2002, B144770) [nonpub. opn.].) In our opinion we noted, because the defense argued not only that someone else actually shot Ambers,